impact the existing character of the project the city. thus, the project would not have a significant land use impact. in addition, the project would not result in significant impacts to population and housing. it would result in a total of 25 residents and employees for .01% increase in the residential population in the marina neighborhood. while this may be noticeable to immediate neighborhoods, the increase would not substantially change the existing area wide population and the resulting entity would not exceed levels that are common in urban areas such as san francisco. further, the project would not displace people are housing or result in the need for additional housing. regarding cumulative and growth- inducing impact, department staff would be planning efforts in the project the vicinity and found no past, present, or foreseeable sud's.

as such, the appellants assertion that it was set at present -- set a precedent for other sud's is speculative. other reasonable developments should be considered in a ceqa analysis. contrary to the appellants assertions, the project is not part of a larger project and is not peacemealing. this refers to the breaking down of a development into multiple developments in order to avoid review. the project at 3155 scott street is an entirely separate and independent of the 2009 housing element and and and other projects proposed. p the project is. iecemealing of a greater project. the fmnd analysis of resources and hazardous materials -- all

of these were analyzed in the fmnd. the appellate has provided no substantial evidence to support their claims to the contrary. finally, before i conclude, i would like to a knowledge the public testimony to that. it is clear from the speakers that there is a great deal of concern regarding the project. i would like to thank the speakers for their testimony and everyone for coming out to speak to something that is very important to them. i would especially know that no new information has been raised that changes our conclusions that and fmnd was appropriately issued. the department has found that, with litigation, the proposed product would not have a significant impact on the environment and fits the criteria of a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to the ceqa guidelines. we believe the appellate has not provided any substantial evidence to review the conclusions of the department.

in some, the pmdn was properly circulated, and ceqa review was given before the project, the project would not result in significant impact cannot be mitigated, the analysis of ceqa topics was adequate, and preparation of eir to address these topics is not warranted. further environmental review would not change the facts that this case would provide information for assessing the potential impact related to density or other ceqa topics. ultimately, it is the city's responsibility under ceqa to determine the significance of an impact and based upon facts of this case. that concludes our presentation. thank you. supervisor farrell: ms. contraras, before you hand it over, i have not had an issue with the environmental review at all.

but i just got your memo back. i wanted to ask you, you labeled it as process. the notion of, when a project is approved has to do with the state case and what supervisor wiener was alluding to earlier. under your estimation, as people who run ceqa for us, when is a project approved? >> thank you, supervisor farrell. i would prefer to speak to the particulars of this case, which are that the loan was approved in july of 2010 did not commit the city to a definitive course of action. the particulars of the loan for this project required that even

in the event of a default, the city would be able to recover its money. the loan itself does not commit the city two particular points of action and supporting the project. supervisor farrell: i understand your point and i read that point. is in the converse true then? it goes both ways, is what i am saying. one person -- you could view it and understand it and say, there are certain outlooks for the city, if it is not approved, there would be certain things. on the flip side, could someone say the same? that the city is committed if the planning department approves it and the board of supervisors approves it, and so forth. >> in my previous experience, a project approval would consist

of building permits, application use signed, and it is common knowledge among planning department stop that that cannot occur until the process is complete. >> thank you. i am lisa gibson with the planning department. if i may address the question. prodded approval occurs at the time when the lead agency, the city, commits to the project to implementing it at a point where it is an action which cannot be reversed. every project has specific circumstances depending on the approval that are required. in this case, the loan was not considered to be an irretrievable, irreversible commitment of resources. in this case, the project approval is the approval of the

conditional use authorization and the sud ordinance to. supervisor farrell: in the memo i got this morning, it says that ceqa is defined as approval by the public agency which commits it to a definite course of action. not irreversible, but a definite course of action. this applies to this project and every other one that we get through. i am just curious from a process point of view. could someone take the position that, if the board approves it and these other things that i mentioned could happen, then we are committed to it? >> i think the operative word there is "it." there is no commitment the city has made to approve the project. this board has not acted to cut -- to approve the project. that is the decision that awaits. the first step that can be much

received that consideration is the determination of the adequacy of the environmental document that is on appeal right now. the loan that was -- that has been approved by the city is very different from the nature of the loan that was the subject of the save tara case. the terms of the loan are very different for the city. the language of the loan documentation is very specific to ensure that the city will get repaid. in that case, there was a resumption and a store and a strong interest the city had in approving the project. if it did not do so, it would not be repaid the money was lent, and that case $500,000. the terms of that project were five years. in this case, these the civil war in which is that if the city does not approve the project in, the loan must be repaid.

if it is not, there is a deed of trust that the city can revoke to claim that property and use those proceeds to repay the loan. supervisor farrell: ok. again, no substantive issue with the environmental review. when i read the memo, and kurt supervisor wiener, i did have a question. the preference is not to address this. but supervisor wiener asked this of the appellant, the attorney. what is the bright line in terms of approval? talking about a dollar amount or otherwise. this hearing today -- again, this is for future processes. i want to be very clear about where we are. >> thank you for the question. president chiu, if i may, i would like to offer that our city attorney is available. we are getting into legal grounds that may be better handled by the city attorney.

>> good afternoon. approval by sequel is when the city to mr. definitive course of action. the most recent case that has discussed this issue said that as many people who would like to be a bright line, and pull -- unfortunately it is not. they have submitted irreversible meeting of discourse, momentum, etc. in the save tara case, we let $500,000 in the absence of repayment. the city has express' officially

that it was support for the project, calling it a done deal. the city began relocation. in that case, the supreme court said that you have gone too far, too early. they actually said it is not a bright line rule. it has to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. supervisor farrell: i completely agree with supervisor wiener's point earlier. how are we going to fund these projects further if there is not some commitment on some level? thank you for answering those questions. supervisor wiener: i want to thank you for following up on that. it is not just about these projects. whether it is treasure island or something else, there are a

million mega-projects were saying the city could not do anything could be possibly interpreted as a vague commitment to wanting a project to be done before you are completely done with your ceqa review would mean that no major projects at all, ever, that require any sort of participation. i do not need the case law to require that. i think the entire case was sort of an extreme kind of case. supervisor chu: i just want to make sure that i understand. in terms of the pre-funding issue that was brought up by the appellant, the issue i am hearing is that because the city's own programs require that there is a loan repayment, should there not be a future approvals going for environmental process? in that case, it is different from the save tara case?

>> experiencing technical difficulties. that is correct. supervisor chu: another question for clarification. we have the environmental documents but also the special use appeal. one of the things i was wondering about was, there is a state law that allows for a density bonus for affordable housing. i wanted to understand how that works. do you get the bonus even without approval of and sud? could you explain that? >> good afternoon president chiu and members of the board. and there are certain circumstances where the state housing bronislaw would encourage a exceptions to the existing law, including changes to environmental requirements, parking requirements, adding density which adds affordability which qualifies in this instance. we have not yet presented the sud or conditional use appeal.

i will present more when you are ready for that. supervisor chu: thank you. president chiu: any further questions? >> i will continue with the presentation. this is our response to a conditional use appeal. the conditional use appeal is perhaps the central question that is before the board today. is this project necessary and desirable for the community? in this case, we are using an existing building for needed housing and services for transitional-aged youths. it is hard to imagine a more necessary or desirable project. while the appellate has raised numerous issues the we have addressed in our materials, i am going to focus on three categories for you today. the process, the project, and the general plan. let's talk about the process first. the appellate argues that proper procedures were not followed,

but that is not the case. the department has followed all procedures for noticing and public hearings for these environments. the prosecutor has above the value of this project at every step in the process. at every opportunity, the appellate has filed an appeal. today is not the first. the document was party appealed before the planning commission and the planning commission upheld the ceqa document before it adopted or even considered enabling legislation in the project. due process has been served. but what about the procedures for the enabling legislation, and this case the special use district. the appellate argues that the commission cannot approve the hottest initial use of a prior to the board approving the sud. again, this is not the case. for all normal procedures, the commission recommended approval of enabling legislation to this body. and the commission approved the cu and engine on your approval.

should do not approve the sud today, there is no cu opposition -- authorization. this is outside the department's jurisdiction. if there are no questions, i will end by remarks to set all public noticing and procedures have been followed. let's consider the project itself. is the project prudent? clearly, the answer is no. as entitled by the commission, this project would allow 24 occupants to reside in a building based upon single occupancy units. this is eight less occupancy could be permitted as of today under the existing codes without the sud. the existing zoning would allow 16 units, each housing to people, of 232 occupants overall with the existing zoning. the sud allows a project that would be more in line with never

requirements. it allows more units to be required, but the project would have a lowered number of occupants per unit. the approved projects as only one occupant per unit for a total of 24. if the appellate was to maximize development potential, they could have saw and sud that would have allowed 44 full-time ok'd is living in 22 rooms, to occupants for room -- two occupants per room. unfortunately, this is not what happened. the appellate submitted several conditions that would like to be applied to this project. the question that aspect of this project, such as the size of the commitment, the type of support services and security. none of these features are mandated by the planning commission for the group housing uses they approve for. and yet, the products are as

committed to provide these elements with their project. this is testament to the value of the project, not any land-use requirements. during the hearing, commissioners noted reading everything from the public. they consciously decided to include or exclude the final condition before you for your re-examination. many of the appellants additional request are already included in the motion before you or beyond the commission's jurisdiction or told to be inappropriate for a land use body. let me know if you of questions about any of their conditions? and what about conformity with the general plan. the appellate states this project violates individual housing elements. the commission determined that this project is inconsistent with the general plan and perhaps, the special housing element. instead of jumping in point-by- point, it is important to understand that when determining the constituency with the general plan, it requires a view of the whole

plan. the general plan has a number of public policy goals which conflict with each other. the decision makers should review all the pertinent policies and decide whether the project is consistent with the general plan. in addition to considering policies from the housing element, the commission has done that this product is consistent with the transportation, urban design, commerce and industry, and other elements. this project is a reasonable profit that can turn a hotel into housing for those in need. you have heard from those who have lived in the neighborhood and their opinion is important. but under the criteria with the project is considered, necessity and as our ability, these are applied on a citywide basis, not solely a tally of votes in the area. section 303c1 of the planning code allows the board to base its findings on community as well as neighborhood considerations. this was based on conditions

relevant to both the neighborhood and the broader city. it is important -- the project in regard to immediate neighbors. let's also review the project in relative to the benefits of the larger community and other public policy goals. the bottom line is this location is a desirable location for the project as it is in that -- as it is in an area that contains an abundance of housing at a variety of densities. it is an appropriate neighborhood forit is in an areh public transit system. the former u.s. would have generated a higher traffic impasse that it would for young people with limited income. it will help offset the need for private vehicles. the commission spoke specifically about how this

project fits in with the residential character and how in neighborhoods such as this they can provide resources for young people. this is desirable and much needed affordable housing. the commission found that the physical attributes of the project and the housing itself to be compatible with the neighborhood and the surrounding structures. the reuse of an existing building that has been part of the community fabric. they have found that this is compatible. contrary to comments, the project is not yet approved. at this point, the matter is in your hands before you. we respectfully request that the board of supervisors upholds the planning commission's decision. >> thank you.

any questions for planning? please turn cell phones off. supervisor chu: 8 follow up to the question i had earlier. you talked about the density bonus and how the project sponsor could have requested a higher density level. what that had required that they come to us for any approval to get to that level or could that have been done without any action? >> the state housing density requires that cities or jurisdictions require an avenue or ordinances for requiring exemptions including density increases. it could have been required either through a universal or it is adopted through this board that it is applied in any case.

it has been a process in san francisco. additional community input is required for everything that comes forward. >> thank you. supervisor farrell: just to clarify real quick, mine are standing that the state has the density bonus of 35%. the local jurisdictions have to grant a law to do that. san francisco has chosen not to do that yet. that's the process we have in place to promulgate the 35%. that is how we do it. >> any other questions?

colleagues, why do we not move to the project sponsored? you can divide up the time as you see fit between the two different appeals? >> good evening, board of supervisors. i am the executive director and the project sponsor. joining me for my presentation today is parcel low not am the executive director of ge services. through our statements today, we will address a myriad of issues brought up. we went to address process. back in 2009, community housing partnership applied for this issue from the housing ordinance. called for housing developers to come together and create house for youth ages 18-24 that at

were risk for homelessness. they asked that baby in a transit rich neighborhood. study showed that too much affordable housing in areas that are saturated. there are specific warning points to have this in a low crime rate neighborhood and did not have saturation. there are two brokers along side the search. it was for sale. it met our criteria. it would fit up to 24 units. it would be delivered vacant. it was in a transit-rich

neighborhood with a low crime rate. the minute we were awarded funds for a loan, we began community outreach. we began by saying that we were looking for offices in district two. we began community out reached. we have support letters from residents in district two, from city-wide organizations and a documentation of over 65 community outreaches we have had. i would like to address how this will impact the neighborhood. this is a rich and vibrant neighbor to any community in seven francisco. we will have 24-hour staffing on-site. we will be a good community neighbor. by coming together with the

neighborhood groups, we could come together with medication. they have already agreed to 4 mitigations on neighbor's requests. we are providing 24/7 staffing. we have a desk coverage 24 hours a day, six days a week. we created over 3000 square feet of community space. we have limited overnight guests to over 10 per month. we committed to forming a project advisory committee that would be present through the operation stage of the process. upon execution of this agreement, the neighborhood group walked away. they decided to come here today and have their administrative appeal.

they were unable to reach a partnership with us. we feel that we made every attempt possible under current law and regulations to address the neighbor's concerns. the kids will have a lease. they will sign it. they will have topay rent and be a good neighbor. we feel this has the right set of tools to be a successful project. i will now how barcelona to come forward to talk to you about the design of the building. >> good evening. i would like to distribute some drawings to the board. 13 there. there is also --

>> your time is continuing. >> we have been doing affordable housing for over 20 years. we have designed and constructed over 1300 units in san francisco. it is the kind of work we like to do. we believe that is why it market street wants to work with us. we will go to the next page that we cover. >> could you get to the microphone?