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 chase, it requires that there not be a slope of greater than 20%. this particular project does not categorically exempt. nobody disagrees. staff agrees that this project cannot be categorically exempt. it makes clear that the state connects the subdivision with what is allowed by the subdivision. this is a catalyst for development. it is not just looking at a line on a map. by saying that you cannot have an exemption of slopes more than 20% is saying that you are looking at the development that might happen and the fact that there could be environmental impact. there is no categorical

exemption here. this is the question before you. this is the more difficult thing for the city or the applicant to prove. it has to be seen with certainty that there is no possible impact for this to be exempt. you have to connect, and just -- not just the fact of the subdivision, but what would be allowed by that subdivision. this project has been before the city many times. this is the fourth time. it is because it is a very difficult site. we have the geotechnical engineer here. there have been all kinds of problems with landslides and three prior land development projects have gone forward because of problems. at this time, the applicant is

only requesting the subdivision. it has been disclosed that there are two lots. a smaller lot a lobby is on the. the applicant has disclosed that the plan is to develop a lot a and n0t lot b. we're there is an easement on the lot but the city has no right to enforce it. it is not before you. what has been disclosed is that lt a plans to redevelop. in light of that and in light of any development on a lot a may have geotechnical impact, the board cannot make the findings that there is no possible environmental impact. that is something that is in the record before you. i. attached, in my letter today,

a couple of letters from 1988. there were prior attempts to develop this parcel. the applicant, in that case, wanted to look at the subdivisions first and move forward with the project grid if you look at the letter from february 2, i will not read it, but basically it said -- your planning staff said in 1988 that if you get a subdivision first it makes it possible to sell those ourselves to different parties. he -- the mitigation of lot a could not occur because there would be no right to go to the second lot.

what your staff said then and still remains true is that the geological formations on these properties are connected. the lots are physically connected. if you allow them to be subdivided now, they could be owned by different people and that would not be good because you need to stabilize the upper slopes before you develop the bottom lot. that is not before you today. there is no mitigation, no plans into require stabilization of the upper slopes. there is significant evidence before you that there are problems with that, with the whole car sell, -- the whole parcel, it is basically a cliff. the whole thing is explaining why he should not allow a subdivision prior to doing and are meant to review. whatever reason this applicant

has for requesting a subdivision, it has to do with a reasonably foreseeable development of the site. we have a lot of ceqa cases, environmental cases the sec, he should not segment environmental approval. you're supposed to look at the issues as early as possible in the planning prospect. hear, the subdivision is step one, next is reasonably foreseeable development. if you get a supreme court case law that says if you have a receipt -- a reasonable foreseeable devout man, take a look at the whole thing. why not look on the proposed development on the smaller side, which is reasonably perceivable even if we do not have an application yet. that is the point of this. but get it all together so you can figure out how you stabilize the smoke, howdy mitigate the impact, how you deal with the environmental review. this is a site that could affect many parcels are rounded -- around it. there is no certainty that there

is no possible environmental impact. you cannot separated because the ceqa guidelines tell you you can. it is not that difficult of a decision. you have been told by the state that you have to look not just at the staff for the line you're drawing or the paper for approving the parcels, but development that would facilitate that. that is what the categorical exemption says. it is really ironic, it seems to me, for the city to conceive that this project cannot be categorically exempt because it does not mean the simple criteria of the regulation. but it can be seen with certainty there is no possible environmental impact. i actually have a little time left. i am happy to answer questions. basically, we ask that you require this project to undergo environmental review. it cannot be exempted from ceqa. president chiu: in reference the

planning department's references to the stability issues. obviously, that was not in the most recent analysis. could you distinguish out there recently came out versus what happened in the past half -- happened in the past? >> nothing has changed in figure in -- in terms of wanting to figure out a way to how to stabilize the slope. there is a more recent geotechnical report from the applicant. when the planning department noticed because recent report, it did not have the benefit of the doctors analysis. he has just come in and done a very thorough analysis. i think declare a debarment was relying on the fact that the applicant has produced a to a technical report but it has never answered the question about, without a product before it, how could you know what stabilization could be needed on other properties whose impact could stretch beyond the property lines. now we have the daughter of

reports that you have seen today. he is here to a 22 that, any excavation -- he is here to explain to you that, any excavation will cause an undermining of nearby properties. and that the city loses control. once the city grants a subdivision, apparently the development rules change for the parcels. they are tied to the parcels and the rules would be different than it would for a single parcel. that is why the applicant was to do that. president chiu: you made a reference to some supreme court case that made reference to it if they could be an impact, we need to fight against the categories that specifically refer to that. >> the supreme court says it cannot sekhmet approvals. there are not categorical all exemptions, but there is negative declaration exemption and the general concept that even if it is a line on a piece of paper, and whether it is

annexation or sunning, you cannot then wait for a project some metal -- project submittal. bozon vs. lasko is the classic supreme court case that says if you have a project that is the first step in the approval and brings momentum for a project, you cannot segment it. in ceqa, if you divide of a project into pieces, here you are doing a subdivision. you cannot point to direct impact yet, but it is opening the door to a different kind of development which would otherwise occur. as your staff as noted, we do not want to divide these properties and lose control of the whole of the site.