on this basis, a request that the supervisors rescind it. supervisor wiener: is it your position that an sud can't be sponsored before ceqa certification? the mere introduction of an sud or zoning legislation can't be introduced or co-sponsored before sequence -- ceqa? >> because it has six sponsors, it is basically a done deal. supervisor wiener: if i introduce an sud and my colleagues add their name as a

co-sponsor, in your mind, that would be invalid? >> it creates the impression of city support prior to the completion of the ceqa analysis. under the factors, i believe this would show the kind of bureaucratic and financial momentum in conjunction with the fact that the mayor's office of housing -- it subverts the sceqa process. supervisor wiener: supervisors can vote on the process once it has happened. we have seen that before. you are not signing in blood that you are voting for it. >> you would be in a better

position to ansewer that than i. i don't dispute the lack of a rule, i realize it creates a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity. the fact remains that this was a project that got pushed through. any additional questions? colleagues, any additional questions to any of the parties? all right, at this time, this hearing has been held and is closed. these matters are in the hands of the board. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president.

i understand that we are first dealing with ceqa. i appreciate everyone coming out tonight. this has been the source of a lot of debate for years in district two. but me first address ceqa. i appreciate the planning department answering the questions i had earlier. i am going to make a motion to approve or item 36 and table 37 and 38. >> this is seconded by supervisor elsbernd. we need a roll-call vote because the house has changed. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> mar absent.

>> mirkarimi absent. >> aye. >> there are nine ayes. >> colleagues, at this time i would like to make a motion that we affirm the planning commission's decision on the conditional use authorization. the determined to -- determination to authorize the project was appropriate. i think there has been very sufficient analyses with all of the issues regarding to services, etc. i would like to make a motion that we affirm the planning commission's decision, which is approving item 40 and tabling 41 and 42.

>> thank you. thank you to everyone for coming out and participating in this hearing. it is always fun to have and a problem to have friends on both sides of the aisle. for the past two weeks, we have been working hard to broker a compromise. unfortunately, we did fall short. i am thankful to the board members that this is all you have had to see of this topic. ever since i started running in district two, this has been one of the biggest topics of debate in the district. as with the booker t. washington discussion earlier this year, i would imagine everyone who is

appealing this believes in the need for more cheap housing in san francisco. it is an issue that we prioritize in san francisco and at city hall. i do not view it as an issue that should trump every other issue. in my mind, it is an issue that needs to be promoted. it also needs to be balanced. as i will speak about in a second, what's lost is that it is all about the kids who are going to live there. and the need to turn a blind eye towards other development issue is to turn away from the project and compromise the experience of who lives there. let me be very clear. every other single development that comes across to our board, in our district or not, it does

not matter to me. for the projects we have seen this year, we have seen them in district two, to build these developments into our neighborhoods and build them into the fabric of our neighborhoods. this is something i support 100%. i do not know about my colleagues. i have not talked to folks about it. my family lives across the street from a transitional youth development. they are an incredibly well integrated part of the neighborhood and a contributing partner to the area that we live. much has been said today. we had a number of applicants including chp. it is a smack on the marina

district. some initial contact was made to the neighboring groups. this was the first time that a lot of the neighbors had an opportunity to speak about the project. from the getgo, i have been very clear with everyone that this element to the project has been the biggest problem that i have had as the developer. combined with the initial out reach, that was less than ideal. that is why we are here today for these appeals. to talk to some of the people like came here tonight, i think it is very important for me to articulate why i believe the neighborhood surrounding this project, all five neighborhood

groups to represent constituents are around the project are part of this appeal. unfortunately. to dismiss the biggest myth out there, i want to dispel the notion that they do not want those kids in the neighborhood. ever since i have bent in city hall, there seems to be 5%-10% on either side of the cartel that represent the extremes. the gentleman that came up and call the kids losers, he should be ashamed of himself. that has no place in our debate on the board. the advocates use -- who came out and spoke on behalf of the booker t. washington center and called certain neighborhood people racists because they wanted to take a 4 off of a building has no place in this

debate. it is the middle where the real dialogue happens, where the real concerns are met. the people from district two who came out and spoke in an inappropriate way, i am sorry. that does not represent my feelings or the vast majority of people in the area. aside from the surprise element, there are two things that people have spent cautious about. there are different estimates over $10 million. close to half a million dollars per unit. i have constituents that come up to me and say, why do we not just buy them, those. it is a complicated matter. that is an issue. zoning. right now, it is a 50% increase

from the current zoning. the california automatic requirement is something we do not implement in san francisco. i understand the movement to increase zoning in san francisco. i admit that i have my own issues. for people that bought neighborhoods with certain zoning requirements, i understand that they have concerns. ask anyone who is part of this appeal. if they would be here today, they continue to be zoned for 60 minutes, the answer would be no. i have talked long and hard with folks about this. this would not be the appeal. i hope this proves to folks that this is not about having kids in the neighborhood. for those who call my constituents nimbies because

there are involved in their neighborhoods, that is a cheap shot. that is in disregard to the dialogue happening around this project. let me say how much i do appreciate the efforts over the last six months. this project got off to a rally rocky start. beyond belief in my district. the last six months have really turned it around. i wanted to call you how to say thank you so much. the writing is on the wall. this is going to go through tonight. as i have stated, this will be a good project in our district. i have a great deal of friends who have been involved in larkin street. they currently serve on the

board. they both do great work. the objections on this project have nothing to do with the organizations involved at all. they have to do with the process that took place at the project site. where we are with every single neighborhood group and merchant group opposing the project that borders us, it is not an issue that goes away. despite that this is overwhelmingly opposed in the neighborhoods, i am proud that people have stood up from district to to say that they support the project. the simple answer is that i start over.

there is a lot of support for projects like this. i look forward to having the opportunity to shepard one of these projects from the beginning, not until the end. i understand that the board is going to approve this today. you have my commitment that i am going to work to make this a great project for the neighborhood and the project sponsors involved. let me talk about moving forward. no one likes the way this -- this project has evolved. i know the project sponsors do not. the neighbors have had an incredibly frustrating experience. i would like to thank you again for your work on this project and working on this legislation today. it has not been fun.

there has to be a better way. the way to construct these projects in our neighborhood and getting involved in the process and their support. in my opinion, that is the only way forward on these projects. i think this is such a key point. what gets lost in all of the advocacy and the stories on both sides of the aisle, what is it going to be like for the kids that live there? i believe there will be a fundamental difference between a project that is absolutely opposed by the vast majority of the neighborhood, it is unfortunate, but their experience is going to be different than a project that has been talked about in the neighborhoods, as neighborhood input, and is ultimately supported by the neighborhood.

the experience of the kids in the neighborhood is going to be vastly different. that has to be our goal. i introduced legislation that i drafted with them. we work together to provide greater notice on these projects. despite supporting the president's motion, i want to reiterate my commitment to the neighborhood, the project's sponsors, and the 22 kids that will live there. i will work tirelessly to make sure that it is well integrated and a great part of our community in district two. >> thank you. unless there's any additional discussion, let's take a roll- call vote. >> mr. president, you made the

motion. who was the second? thank you. >> we will take a roll-call vote on the motion to affirm the planning commission's decision. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >>mar absent. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the air arenine ayes, one no. >> that decision as a form. if we could take up item 10, which has already been called. i would like to say a few words on this item. i want to thank everyone for coming out.

we still have another appeal to go. we would like to thank the parties of the subsequent appeal for the time you have spent waiting. we all wish for the issues we had in front of us had been resolved previously. i want to thank all of the neighborhood associations that brought us the appeals for the many meetings that you had with my office, my staff as well as supervisor farrell and your willingness to engage with the project sponsors. this is around staffing and a number of overnight guests on the commitment to the community advisory committee and are raising issues that make sure that this project works with the community. i want to congratulate the project sponsor for your work for the community housing partnership, for helping to make sure that we are building something that will make us all

proud. i also want to thank supervisor farrell. i will commit to you and make sure that this project is a success. that the neighbors build a great community. supervisor farrell, i look forward to not having to work on any more inherited projects related to district two. when i was asked about this legislation, i had to think about it. i knew that it would involve controversy. we lived in the city of st. francis. we judge ourselves on how we help those in need. how we help those in transition. how we help those that need housing. the notion that we should have affordable housing all over the city, particularly for our transitional age youth is a

very san francisco concept. this legislation and the appeals we have approved is about making sure that san francisco is the kind of place where everyone can live wherever we are able to. colleagues, at this time i ask for your support of the legislation. i look forward to helping move this project. >> thank you. >> before we take a vote, i would like to make a few comments. thank supervise farrell for the closing comments that you made. i think that you elevated the conversation tonight. it is easy for people on both sides to make assumptions. it is important that we see beyond that if we want to have a better san francisco. i thank you for elevating the conversation. >> i want to second that and

stress with respect to the neighbors that have concerns about this, people are entitled to be involved in their neighborhood. supervisor kim and i are dealing with a possible group housing issue. there was a lot of extreme concern expressed by neighbors. when we sat down and talk with them, these are people that are not against any change. they are against group housing. people that just want to make sure that their neighborhood is respected. i think it is always important to keep that in mind. supervisor farrell, thank you for your yeoman's work on bringing people together on this

project. >> any more comments? why do we not take a roll-call vote on item 10? >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> mar absent. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there arenine ayes, one no. >> this ordinance is passed on a first reading. if i could ask if folks could leave as quickly as possible because we do have another full appeal to work through.

if we could ask folks if you could please exit quickly so that we can start the next appeal.

at this time, why do we not start our next, what was a 4:00 p.m. item? >> item 27 is a public hearing a person is interested in the decision of the planning department. that project located at santos street is exempt from environmental review. item 28, the motion affirming the planning department's determination that the project is exempt. item 29, the item reversing a determination. item 31 is a public hearing a person is interested in the decision of the department of public works. item 32 is a motion approving the decision of the department of public works approving best.

item 33, the motion disapproving the department's decision. item 34 is a motion directing the findings. >> thank you. i appreciate on behalf of the board the patience of the parties of this appeal for waiting for 3.5 hours. i do not think that any of vostok that the last appeal would take as long as it did. there are two things associated with the project. the proposed work involves subdivision of an existing lot and a 9300 sq. ft. parcel. there is an appeal of the determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. secondly, there is an appeal of the department of public works approval of the parcel map. both appeals are brought by the same appellant.

this is on the environmental review exemption appeal. the exemptions on each are different. it is the environmental review exemption. it is the exemption and completeness of the determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. this is a legislative hearing. six votes of the board are required. our review of the appeal will determine whether the parcel map is consistent with the general plan. while both hearings involve distinctive issues and analyses, they relate to the same address and the consideration of members of the public that may wish to speak to one or both of the issues. i suggest that we consolidate both hearings into a single hearing as we just did. in order to ensure that both parties receive a fair

opportunity, i suggest this. -- the appellant will have up to 10 minutes to do the apartment to review exemption. the appellants will then have 10 minutes. members of the public who wish to support either or both of the appeals may speak for up to two minutes on either or both of the issues. the planning department will have up to 10 minutes to present the impairment to review exemption. we will hear from representatives from the planning department that will describe the grounds for the decision to approve the parcel map. next, they will have but to 10 minutes to present their case for the impairment to review exemption. the party will have up to 10 minutes to present their case for the tentative parcel map. following the party of interest, the members of the public who wish to support the

environmental review exemption and the parcel map may speak up to 10 minutes on either or both of the issues. please name the part that you wish to address. the appellate will have 10 minutes in rebuttal to for support of the environmental review exemption. at the conclusion of the hearing, we will vote on whether to a firm debarment to review exemption. we will consider the question whether to attend the environmental map. any objections? seeing none, why do we not ask the appellants for the opening arguments? >> good evening. i am here on behalf of the appellants. i will speak for the first 10 minutes of about what is not a categorical exemption. a general rule exclusion.

this is not a categorical exemption. if i can reiterate, under the environmental quality act, there are certain types of projects that appeared not to have any environmental impact. there is no reason not to take the time or the money to do environmental review. there are classes of categories that the office of planning and resources has determined should not have an environmental impact. there is a category that says that minor subdivisions are exempt from ceqa. >> how does this work? >> sfgtv please. >> a minor division of land is exempt from ceqa. just to cut to the