our city's parking lots and in and around our nightclubs. in the last couple of years, we have passed several pieces of legislation to make sure that there is adequate security in and around nightclubs in san francisco. in recent months, there have been requests made of us and by the entertainment industry and nightclub owners in to consider security measures in and around our parking lots, particularly those that are close to nightclub venues. over the last few days, there was another incident of violence that occurred in those spaces. the legislation that supervisor wiener and i are introducing would require all parking lots to have a security plan. for those who are within 1,000 feet of an entertainment permit, to ensure that there is adequate lighting, to ensure that exits and entrances are properly maintained, and to ensure that there is security during the hours of operation of these lots and into the wee hours of

the morning, which is where these incidences of violence take place. i want to thank supervisor wiener for his work on this issue and look for to his consideration. supervisor campos: thank you. colleagues, as i noted earlier, i will be introducing an ordinance that will require that meetings of the san francisco ethics commission be televised. i look forward to your support in that effort. i know that there is a lot of interest in this issue. the key is that we want to provide more transparency to the very important work that the ethics commission does. the rest i submit. supervisor kim: thank you. i had already mentioned this earlier, but i am introducing legislation to amend our public financing laws. i had spoken of it in detail about that previously during our

discussion. basically, incorporating some of the amendments that would actually take out the portion of our public finance law that is now on constitutional by the u.s. supreme court, but also makes steps to protect the intent of public financing, to continue to encourage candidates to participate and be able to allow candidates to run sufficient campaigns as they run for office. i want to a knowledge my cosponsor, supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, and supervisor mirkarimi, and supervisor mar. >> thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor mar: thank you, madam clerk. many of you have probably heard about the unfortunate stabbing death that occurred in the richmond district on monday morning. i wanted to ask my colleagues to

close the meeting in more import dina and peter wu, two of the victims in the violent incident. the passing of dina and her son -- she was 73 and her son was 44. that passed in a domestic violence incident that occurred in monday morning in the richmond district, a few blocks from my home. mr. dennis wu, who was also involved in the ascent. they emigrated from china decades ago and have been very involved in the chinese community. dennis has served as the president of the wu family welfare association for several terms. i will be joining the police commissioner at our police chief and others from the richmond area at a community

meeting this evening at 6:30 at the richmond rec center. the police chief will answer concerns about the incident and i and others will be there to give our condolences to the family but also make our communities safe and address issues such as domestic violence in our neighborhood. the rest i submit. >> seeing no other names on the offer -- on the roster, that includes roll-call for introduction. president chiu: was going other two are four-o'clock special orders? the first hour like to call is the order about the edward the second project. if you could call items 45 and 42 as well as an item 10. >> persons interested in decisions of the planning department and the commission's affirmation of the-declaration adopted and issued on july 14,

200011. projects located at 3151 through 3161 scott street. item 37 is the motion reversing departments issuance of the- declaration. item 38 is the motion directing the findings. item 39 is the person's interest of planning commission's presentation on properly located at 3151-3155 scott street. item 31 is approving the conditional use association. item 41 is disapproving the commission's finding to approved the conditional use association. item 10 has been called. president chiu: on today's hearing, we have to hearings on

the project of 3151-3155 scott street, the edward the second project. this would allow the creation of 25 units of housing, 24 of them for transitional aid to you from 18-24. we have an appeal of the- declaration. there is an appeal of the conditional use authorization for this project. both of these have been brought by the same appellant, the county all association and various other associations to. the issues on the appeals are different. our consideration of the appeals of the neg dec, involves the inaccurate -- the inaccuracies and inadequacy of the declaration. six votes of the board are required. our appeal of the conditional use authorization involves an analysis of whether the planning

commission's determination to authorize the project was appropriate. this hearing is quasi--judicial and nature and may require due process. to overturn planning or to authorize the conditions, eight boats of the board are required. while both hearings involve distinct analysis, they relate to the same project and the consideration of many members of the public that may wish to speak on one or both of these issues. under consideration of the appellant, the board, and itself, i suggest we consolidate into a single hearing. in order to ensure that the project sponsor and others receive a full opportunity to address the appeals, i propose that we conduct the hearing as follows -- first, the appellate will have up to 10 minutes to present their case for the appeal. the appellate will then have 10 additional minutes to appeal the

conditional use application. next, members of the public to support either or both of the appeals, meaning you want to request to reject the neg dac or conditional use, you missed but -- you may be for up to 10 minutes on both of these issues. next, the planning debarment will have up to 10 minutes to present the analysis for certifying the neg dec and another 10 minutes to present analysis for authorizing the conditional use and planning unit development. following planning a presentation, the real party in interest, the project sponsor, will have up to 10 minutes to present their case for certification of the- declaration. the project sponsor will have up to 10 minutes confirming the authorization. following the project sponsor, members of the public debt which to support the issuance of the neg dec and the conditional use of -- conditional use authorization may speak for up

to 10 minutes on both issues. we ask the speakers to identify a particular appeal if they wish. finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for rebuttal in support of the neg dec appeal and the conditional use authorization. at the end of the hearing, we are considered by law to consider the question of the issuance of the-declaration and therefore, we will first vote on whether to affirm the neg dec. in the event it is confirmed, we will then confirm or overturned the conditional use authorization. given that this relates to the conditional use authorization is quasi--judicial in nature, we need to provide parties with due process for this entire proceeding. members may not be biased or predispose toward a particular option on this project. all of us will be considering the same effects, records, and

testimony. colleagues, any objections to proceeding in this way? let me ask the supervisor farrell resided you have any official comment. why don't we proceed to the hearing? i will have four representatives from the appellants. if you could please set up. as i said before, you have of 210 minutes to present your case for the appeal of the neg de3c. you up to 10 minutes for the appeal of the cu. you can use all of that time or as much as you would like. >> president chiu and supervisors, thank you. i represent the cow hollow association. i will present the talking points regarding the final mitigated-declaration appeal. then i will continue on to the

cu and, with president chiu's permission, ceded the rest of my time to a member of the cow hollow association. the overarching point before us today is about transparency and consistency and processed. the cha is entitled to a full and complete objective analysis under ceqa, rather than go through all of the points that the association has put forward or referred to you in the written materials and discussed what i think are the most important. first, the city violated ceqa by failing to perform required analysis before approving the project. before approving a project subject to ceqa, the city must

consider a final eir or neg dec. the california supreme court has emphasized that ceqa requires environmental review to refer to products first rather than final approval. by lending its political and financial assistance to this project, the city, as a practical matter, has committed itself to the project. in august of 2009, the mayor's office of housing issued a notice of funding availability for $2 million for a housing project. c after. hp as the project sponsor, the recommended an additional $2.4 million to chp outside of the funding selection process.

in july of 2010, chp executed a deed of trust and security agreement with the mayor's office of housing. on july 20, 2010, the city issued a notice -- rather, a certificate of exemption with regard to ceqa. finding that the projects categorically exempt from further ceqa analysis. on that same day, the mayor's office approved the loan. within a few days, it became clear that the planning department was -- had decided to not go forward with the notice of exemption and instead began a study to determine whether the project may have significant effects on the environment. december 2010, the city loaned

chp another $2.2 million. for a total $4.4 million. the money has been lent, the property had been purchased, but it was not until july of this year that the mitigated neg dec became final. what we have here is a fait accompli. there is little room to argue that this project would not go forward or will not go forward. by committing $4.4 million, it has subverted the ceqa of process and deprived the cow hollow association and other neighbors of their due process. president chiu: we have a question from one of our colleagues. if we could roll the clock while he asks the question. supervisor wiener: thank you for

bringing up this argument because it is one that i really do not understand. i wanted to press you on it. you cannot do ceqa until you have enough shape around the project to do a ceqa analysis. is that correct? in terms of the density, the traffic impact, and being able to study those kinds of things. right? >> correct. supervisor wiener: if you decide you want to support transition aged youth housing and this is a great provider and we want to start supporting the project and encouraging development, but it is one to take us some time to actually figure out if it will be 30 units, 70 units, 20 units, 100, is there one to be parking or no parking, and all the other things that go into the final project. your argument that the city cannot take any of those steps

ahead of time to work with the provider to come up with a project without first undergoing ceqa on a project that does not exist because you cannot do ceqa on it, that is what i'm hearing and i am a little bit confused. >> the issue is that the mayor's office of housing loan $4.4 million. \ supervisor wiener: that is often the case. if you loan money to explore what the possibilities are. there are a lot of transactions that happened before you have a product that is far enough along to be able to undergo a ceqa analysis. >> to buy the building? supervisor wiener: that building -- if you got -- if you do not know if anything can be done to that building, there are so many things that happened before you have a building or a project

that is tangible enough to undergo ceqa that it strikes me that the argument you are making, taken to its logical conclusion, would make it impossible for government to engage in any kind of project activities to move a project forward without undergoing ceqa even though you could not undergo ceqa because the details are not finalized. >> i would respectfully disagree. there are many steps that the city could take them a require the expenditure of funds that would not, as a practical matter, require the city to commit itself to the project. but by loaning $4.4 million on a 55-year loan, and allowing the project sponsor to purchase this building, that is a commitment to the project. supervisor wiener: what if the city did not load any money or a

small amount of money, said $100,000, to go through a process and spent 300 hours of staff time working with the provider to determine what kind of price would be appropriate? could someone take the position that that is committing yourself such that you would have to undergo extensive ceqa analysis even though you do not have a fully fleshed out project and appeal that to this board and file a lawsuit afterwards? that is what i'm trying to feel here. where are the limits to your argument about these three- commitments? i do not see where you draw that line. it strikes me as ceqa swallowing up the ability of government to do any kind of planning or partnering before you have a final project ready for presentation. >> our position is that, by loaning $4.4 million so that chp

could purchase the building, it is far beyond any preliminary inquiry or planning stage. it is a de facto commitment to the project prior to ceqa- reviewed approval. supervisor wiener: how do you draw that line of? you're saying one thing, but i could think of 100 difference in areas where someone could take that exact same position. >> it is difficult to discern. but here, it is not. it is so far into the realm of tacit approval. this is $4.4 million we are talking about. a substantial sum of money. supervisor wiener: what if it were $500,000? >> i agree that there are facts out there that would make it more difficult and it would be nice to have a rule. but that is now we are -- that is not what we are arguing for today. we are arguing for the facts

before us under the circumstances. $4.4 million is a commitment to the project. supervisor wiener: because there is no rule, what your argument leads to is the possibility of tying up any project that has any civic participation before you have a ceqa-ready project. then you are pre-committed. you said that, in the paper, you are pre-committed. i can see many different scenarios were this is a problem, but i will let you continue. >> i will use my time to address your point. i believe that if there were more transparent mechanisms to plan and approve these projects, then everyone would have an idea of how the process is supposed to transpire, what the role of the neighborhood is, and what the process is and there would be consistency in

that process. supervisor wiener: that is not ceqa. that has to do with our planning process, distinct from ceqa. >> i will examine those arguments from the conditional use. my next point is that the lead agency did not address the adverse social effects on people caused by the project. as a factor in determining the significance of the project's political changes. if the project would cause overcrowding at a public facility and the overcrowding causes an adverse affect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect. hear, the planning department fails to consider whether an adverse affect on the neighbors caused by overcrowding due to the physical changes to the building is a significant effect. the department bases its analysis on the assumption that there will be 24 presidents.

however, there is no such limitation bound in the application in the analysis under ceqa. my next point is that the mandatory findings of significant cumulative impact analysis, growth inducing impact analysis, were flawed and glossed over. in both the initial study and the final mitigated neg dec failed to take into account the impact in a special use district and increased density as well as performance of open space requirements. next, i would like to address a

piece milling -- pieacemealing nature of the process, in that through this pre approval long process, you have a new way of approving projects in the city. you have grown so much money behind them that it is a done deal. really, what that is is a de facto amendment to the housing element. when you look at the housing element, uc -- you see issues of transparency and neighborhood involvement required. that is just not what happened here. the point is that, what you really have is a de facto amendment to the housing element. and that requires an eir.

moreover, what the -- i will reserve that argument. i have not had an opportunity to -- i know that the department came out with a response to some of these issues we raised today. i have not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly. but i understand that the argument is the city is not committed to the project. and i'd just do not sent see how a $4.4 million loan over a period of 55 years is anything less than a commitment to the project. i would also point out that the notice of exemption, while the department may believe there is evidence that this is a case

that does not require a- declaration, i would like to point out that that flies in the face that this is a the mitigated neg dec. it is the notice of exemption that is referred to as the -- it has no practical implication or it does not shed any light on the necessity of the mitigated neg dec. unless the supervisors have any questions, i will move on to highlight the arguments in the conditional use. first, the commission improperly authorized the conditional use before the board of supervisors. a conditional use permit allows

the use permitted by the zoning regulations, but because of possibilities that permitted use could be incompatible with applicable zoning, a special permit is required. the project is not permitted under current zoning legislation. planning commission found the project is consistent with the planning code based on the proposed ordinance which is not current laws. the fact is more convenient with the city to do a conditional use at the same time as ceqa does not mean that they can ignore the procedure. the conditional use, as it stands, assumes it is already passed and that is not the case. nothing in the conditional use authorization makes a contingent upon an sud. next, the city's special use district ordinance is improper methods to propagate california codes based on property requirements.

density bonus requirements require the city to adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with the density bonus law will be implemented. the city has not adopted an ordinance. if it did, it would go to some of supervisor wiener's concerns about how the process should proceed to continue and approved low-income housing. instead, the city passes and ad hoc ordinance under special use district ordinance to allow density bonuses. arguably, the city must pass an sud to comply with the density bonus requirements of state law. the city is in an untenable

situation. if the city did pass an ordinance, that would comprehensively deal with the density bonus requirements, you would have a consistent and transparent application of the regulation. hear, there it -- here, there is no transparency, it is not consistent, and there is no way for the neighbors to understand and participate in a process because this ad hoc basis is opaque to the average resident. next, the commission did not address the inherent conflict between permanent housing and housing for transitional-aged youths. the project is designed to be

affordable housing for youth between 18-24 years of age. there is a fundamental conflict between housing design for youth up to a particular age and permanent housing with eviction control. again, there is a disconnect between the project as presented to the community and to the potential reality. the risk is that once the project is fully occupied, current residents will not cycle out to make room for additional residents, but after several years, the project could be at full capacity with only residents over the age of 24. the sud does not require tay housing, but the application, the legislation, the entire process is presented as that. this is an issue that