mirkarimi has been a motion to recuse. we have in front of us determination by the planning commission that 213 los palmas drive is categorically exempt from environmental review. this project is tattered correctly exempt from environmental review. he will have 10 mets to describe the public review. each speaker will have up to 2 minutes to describe this. we will then hear from the planning. following planning, we will hear from the real party interest. we will hear from members of the public that wish to speak on this. each speaker having two minutes

to present. the appellants will have three minutes for rebuttal. any objections to proceeding in this way? mr. williams, the floor is yours for up to 10 minutes. [inaudible] >> i am wondering if the microphone at the podium is on. >> testing. >> i am representing the appellant and the surrounding neighbors. this proposed project was granted a categorical exemption

in error. this is in a known hazards own. by definition, this is a sensitive environmental area and is the site of what we believe is the only fatal landslide in the history of san francisco. it is in this unusual zone. an attempt to stabilize the soil and the proper review from the department was not accomplished. the project exceeds the maximum of side -- size all-out for a class 3 exemption. it is limited to three single- family homes. although three homes will be built, the fourth home is also involved. the cumulative impacts of the

known addition, nearly identical projects, the same area, the same neighborhood may create a significant environmental impact. these projects are not speculative. they are almost certain to occur. the district supervisor has removed himself from the process. supervisor elsbernd does not live near this project. he lived near one of these other projects that he knows is coming. these are four clear reasons why the use of categorical exemption is inappropriate. as legislators, you may not agree with that particular argument that we put forward. i asked you to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the project. look at the wake of the arguments. is it a reason -- weight of the

arguments. is it reasonable to grant an automatic blanket and waiver of the environmental review? we have a landslide sites. we have 20-foot concrete appears to hold the foundation in place. we have the creation of four new development lots. the cumulative impacts from other projects that are certain to occur have not been reviewed or considered by the department. this project is in a very sensitive environmental areas. donnelly is it specifically within the -- not only is it within the seismic hazard study zone, it is the site of what we believe is the only fatal landslide in the history of san francisco. this is a map of maintained by

the city. this was the flow of the landslide in 1942. it ended up with one fatality and three homes destroyed. three of the four lots traded by this project, this is on page 6 of the original appeal. the flow of the landslide is outlined in red. because this is such a dangerous landslide area, we have a code of regulations that was established to fulfill the mission of that act. requires mitigation to deal with any seismic hazards at the site. the regulations require independent review of the proposal by the lead agency. such a review has not been conducted. we have reviewed a report from an engineer as an exhibit b to our last letter to the

board. that is attached as an exhibit b. he is making a presentation about what he believes is required under that particular law. the department requires that the mitigation measures that are now required for this project, the 18-inch concrete appears that will be driven into the ground to hold the foundation for the small wooden buildings, that they are not mitigation features at all, but mere design features. this kind of rationale has been rejected by the boards. most recently in the network case out of the county, the court said that whether a project may impact the environment around it must be made it without reliance upon

any proposed mitigation. in that case, which involves a single one-family home, the builder called the medications that he was using project features. almost identical to the design features of being used. the court rejected this as use of creative nomenclature. anything of that source is a mitigation. it is above and beyond what is required of the building code, just as this case. reliance upon the mitigation measures, in the application or later on, the department says that the mitigation measures were adopted later on by the department. the court states that those medications involved and the value to of -- evaluative

process that weighs them against environmental impacts. this is a dance sequence standards for eir's. this is exactly what occurred in this case. this included a lengthy discussion of mitigation measures and how it might decrease the impact on the landslide area. it also might stabilize the hillside. this is not quite categorical exemptions will be used. this project also exceeds the maximum permitted construction. the construction of three single-family homes is prohibited from see >> review. ceqa also says that to ensure that the broadest environmental protection, these are to be narrowly interpreted. if a project goes beyond what is specifically described in the

exemption, exemption cannot be used. the project merge two lots together. the existing buildings had to be altered. a rear addition had to be removed or this new lot line cannot be created. they have submitted conclusive photographic evidence showing that the existing golding was altered after it was purchased by the developer. the project no longer qualifies for this particular exemption. the builder said that they did not alter this building. the rear addition had to be removed, which was the only way this project could beat -- could go forward. by unknown parties for unknown reasons. you have this photographic evidence that shows that the rear addition was put into place when the property changed hands. i have put forward some more

evidence on cumulative impacts. ceqa forbids the use of categorical exemptions. the department says that the future projects coming to the area are too speculative or unknown. these are known to the neighbors and to the neighborhood supervisors. if you look at the materials i handed to you, there is a church ot, it is actually two lots, the vacant lot across the street is also owned by the church. there was a long battle between the church and its founding church. that development lot has been sold and has been proposed for beento 7 -- for up to seven single-family homes. this is marketing lots in this

area for development into multi- family homes. this is not speculation. this brings up issues that need to be reviewed. that is what the concern is. this is a broad policy issue that will bring up traffic impacts, view in visual impacts, and general plan issues as well. in conclusion, let me ask you that you look carefully at our arguments and listen to our experts. it is clear under state law, you need the necessary independent review of the geological and technical reports done by the developer has not been accomplished. this project cannot be approved. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? let me ask if there are members

of the public who would wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? if you could step up to the microphone, each speaker will have up to two minutes. the first speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am a civil structural engineer. i have been retained by the neighbors of the neighborhood to evaluate the engineering aspects of the project. i put together a report that has been submitted to you in exhibit b. if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. there are two reports. the earth sciences report as well as the trans sport -- trans

pacific report. there is acknowledgment that this project and the staff report acknowledges that we are in a seismic slide hazard zone. the issue is that there is a certain standard of care that needs to be applied to the value wait projects in such a zone. those are spelled out by the california code of regulations. there is the seismic hazard mapping act that came into effect in 1991 that spells out. there is a document that is prepared by the california

geological survey that could be used as a commentary to reinterpreted what the requirements are. that document spells out the standard of care that should be applied. the important thing is that there is a certain standard of conducting -- >> thank you very much. we give each member of the public equal time. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am president of the park improvement club. you should all have a letter in your file that was sent to president chiu and the board. i will not discuss the whole thing. i will highlight certain parts. this site has been designated as a hazard zone, which we have heard a couple of times now.

the project proposed includes an existing house that has already been modified by the removal of a back room. the park includes other large vulnerable to a infill development including the one that is currently approved for development. the subsequent development should be subject to a cumulative impact analysis by the department of city planning. there is a lot on the next block, half an acre that was sold. there has been an attempt to build on that. this park was very intelligently designed if anybody has read the way it was designed. the homes are attached. they have large open spaces between the blocks. this info is going to be

destroying that. they were very green, which seems to be what everybody is talking about today with all of these buildings disappearing. if you have ever look at the design -- looked at the design, you would be very impressed that they were actually considering all of these green belts and areas between these closely built homes. we would urge you to go along with what the lawyer said. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i am one of the parties involved. what we are hearing as not neighbor against neighbor or community. we are talking about some state

laws and some mandates that i asked you to take a careful, hard look at and vote your conscience to uphold those laws and the state mandated requirements for this kind of situation. at thank you. >> i live on forrester st.. i want to thank the board for hearing us today. i want to reiterate that my concern is the density of this project. i am not concerned about this aspect of the project. i want to look at when this back bedroom was removed from this project and went on to google earth. there is a clock feature that

will document archival photographs from satellite. it found pictures from june fest of 2010. 7/30 of 2007. 2/18 of 2007. prior to that, it was in 2005. the picture that i have here demonstrates -- the house in question is --this is the home that is in question at 795. you can see that it interrupts the configuration of the main house. you then go to a later photograph from satellite. it shows that that back room is now removed and is just a pad.

i have documentation from google earth. i have another photograph from an independent mapping company that is a vendor for digital globe. that shows the room in existence on 2/19/07. it was claimed by the current owner on 2/23. that is incontrovertible evidence that that room was in existence. they applied for a permit to remove dry rot from that area on at 4/12. >> thank you. next speaker. could you bring the microphone a little closer? >> i spoke before this board in october when we discussed the appeal of the original tenant to

of partial match. i would like to include that information into the record by reference if possible, please. i owned the home directly across the street from this proposed project. i have been there for 17 years. i have observed changes in our yard, in our supporting beams, in our garage areas, and to the springs to run under my property. these continue into the lot that will be developed. there is mitigating construction to control this flow. if the flow is changed, i fear that it will cause additional harm to my property. consider the and that i am living in one of the areas that

was subjected to the landslide, i believe the prudent act would be to request an eir so that the developer can ensure the existing properties and homeowners. in addition, i would like to say that throughout the history of this project, all of the contacts with the developer and his representatives have shown us that they have provided us with nothing but misinformation and misleading facts and in some cases, outright lies. we are depending on this board to ensure that the proper steps are taken. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is paul.

i used to live on forrester st., which was my family's house. i no longer live there. my grandmother lives across the street. i want to talk a little bit about the groundwater and the instability of the soil there. i was contacted by my father one afternoon about defense and my grandmother's house that had fallen. upon arriving there, the fence, which was not hers, but the neighbor, but had sheared eight by eight cedar posts with 34 cubic feet of mud that could only be removed by buckets. my grandfather had hired an engineer to drain the spring before he and my grandmother built their home to avoid any problems from the lack of ground water drainage. this worked for almost 50 years. when it failed, the amount of

spring water that flows, i measured 50 gallons of spring water in two minutes. other people in the neighborhood are with me on this. it is very unstable. we definitely need an environmental review. no exemptions on this project for the reasons everybody has put forward. thank you. >> good afternoon. i live at 735 forrester. i agree and support what he is saying. i have lived in the neighborhoods for 34 years. i have seen various open spaces be built on. it is sad to see what is going on that with this building. these buildings that have been

built, i no-space have had problems with water leakage and various other problems with their homes. they were built when they should not have been built. i am sure that they will have problems. >> thank you. >> let me ask if there are other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. seeing none at this time, why do we not go to a presentation by planning? >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board. i am with the planning department. joining me today is contreras. she prepared the categorical exemption. we sent you 3 memo was

responding to a total of four letters that were submitted by the appellant. we have had an opportunity to review the latest of metal that was handed to us on our arrival today. after careful consideration of the concerns raised by the appellate during testimony today, declining department continues to find that the project was appropriately exempted from the environmental review. the decision is to uphold the department's exemption about the issuance of the categorical exemption or to deny the appeal over -- or to overturn the department's decision. the department found that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under the two classes of the ceqa guidelines. the department considered whether the project would result in any significant environmental affects as a

result of the location within the studies own. we found that there was not such a possibility of an effect. department's responses to the appeal boyle down to five main points. the site to does not automatically disqualify for a categorical exemption or prove that there would be a significant effect. the review process complies with state law when it says that hazardous soil conditions are addressed. the report recommendations are not mitigation measures in the context of ceqa. the mere presence of blocks that could be developed in the future is not evidence of a cumulative effect. the project description is accurate and does not need to include the previous alterations to the existing residents that is on the project site.

to go into these in further detail, the palin argues that the study zone is precisely the type of hazardous or critical concern for categorical exemptions. sequent guideline --ceqa guidelines say their projects can be considered except when the project makes environmental impact on bond a resource or is of critical concern. with the project site location within the seismic hazard studies on, would result in a significant effect? what expose people are structures to risk of injury or death involving landslides or substantial soil erosion? the answer is no. consistent with state and local laws, dbi requires soil from

those in seismic activity zones. they review finally building plants and soil reports to ensure that the new construction is safe and it would insure the stability of the property and any surrounding properties. the appellant has not provided any evidence that there would be a significant effect based on its being in this map hazards own. the project is required to comply with dbi requirements. they employ a the a problems in the soil reports. this is not unusual for projects located on sloat sites. these would be reinforced concrete peers up to a depth of about 25 feet below surface,

removal of any ground water before construction. these and other report recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction drawings that have been prepared by the project sponsor pursuant to the regulatory requirements. they were not adopted by the planning department at the condition contrary to the appellant's assertion. in the context of ceqa, a medication measure is something that would reduce, avoid, or compensate for a significant environmental measure. the department found that the dbi process ensures that there would be no significant effect. engineers routinely refer to design measures to as mitigation measures. measures. they use that term.