i haven't been here in so long. okay, i can talk from here, okay. okay, i would like to say, you know, it's 4:20 coming up and i'm so glad the world is starting out with 4/20. this is going to be the greatest day coming out of san francisco state [speaker not understood]. everyone is african, you know that. you hear me -- they're going to be talking about public policy, about medical marijuana consumption rates, legislation, environmental, physical mental health, [speaker not understood] families of the nation list of first violence, understanding aides and impact across communities, gun violence, what is all the fuss about. affordable housing, health care, owe boom a care, mayor's equality and the black community, is it [speaker not understood] to us, young gift and had black presentations. ~ obamacare this year you know themes all around the city, it's earth day here at city hall 6 o'clock,

the [speaker not understood] is what i came from 4/20. el rio is having a benefit for the foundation. [speaker not understood] a beautiful black man. and eat the rich. and, so, i really hope you know you guys are doing your part in earth day 4/20. i was at [speaker not understood] college up in the hills and they have a new word for racism and home owe phobia. it's called ignorantism. it's called fear. i think in our city we should want to follow-up with that word ignorantism when it comes to racial or sexual genderisms in a city that can cover everything. we can do a better job here me city. thank you, board of supervisors. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.

good afternoon, supervisors. i'm peter war field, executive director of library users association. last week the library commission heard that it's important open hours survey is ready. it's important because, in part, certainly hours open is an extremely important aspect of library service. but also it's important because the voter approved sunday guarantee for the library, prop d in 2007, guaranteed the library very generous funding, but mandated that hours had to be reviewed every five years. so, the library commission was told that the report was ready, that there was no 120-page report for the public available

nor the supplementary 160 pages that had been prepared . all that the public got was an 8 page of executive summary of which essentially only two pages were text. and as far as i can tell, the whole purpose of the report is to blurb rather than clarify what it is that people can't in the way of library hours. in fact, the surveys that were given out never actually asked the members of the public, what specific hours do you want the library to be open? or what additional hours, and in particular, what hours do you most want the library to be open? i could read you the questions from the survey. there were some that talked about what would happen to you if there were reductions and then people were asked to specify what those would be, but there was no comparable question about what was an

additional time period that the library provide to you. i have more to say about the survey and i'll sure you'll be hearing from the library. it's intend today blur that people most want weekends and evenings in the library's own previous surveys. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is douglasyv. -- yip. i couldn't resist seeing two people in this chamber, mr. givener and chris daly. for the record, i'd like to note and mr. givener, in my opinion, did not do an adequate investigation regarding residency of supervisor sean elsbernd before -- before he was reelected in 2008. just thought i'd mention that

since both of them are in this room by sheer luck. secondly, i'd like to remind all critics of local government that the fbi does have a public corruptions unit on golden gate avenue. there's a little plug right there. thirdly, i'd like to thank the examiner and the chronicle for putting forth recent articles regarding the mayor's trip to china. let's put it this way. i would bet plenty of money that the chinese know exactly what they're doing and it wouldn't surprise me if they have certain volunteers arrive in san francisco to do their deeds. also, i would like to mention that in regards to treasure island, i keep hearing on the radio news about what's going on there and the different problems. and i think it's only fair to have mr. tony hall testify in these chambers regarding what happens' going on at treasure

island and what should and shouldn't be done there. ~ what's going on also, i would like to mention why doesn't gao committee on thursday have on its schedule a discussion about mr. henry alvarez? and i think the mayor should donate his retirement check to the people that live in the projects. thank you. >> thanks. next speaker. mr. president, board of supervisors, my name is [speaker not understood], i live in the north of market. i just heard on the conservative radio that the blue angels were canceled. i know this body some years ago had a pretty significant discussion about the safety issues involving the blue angels, and it occurred to me that over and above that, if we're in a government that is not being sufficiently funded and people are cutting corners, you know, safety could be an issue in a program where safety

is really critical. and i know it's potentially a big hit to our city particularly the marin a district, but, you know, if you're cutting corners and you can't account for safety, then there's other kind of programs that actually should get cut. thank you. ~ marina >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in general public comment, please step up. appreciate it [speaker not understood] to the other members here. i guess i'm having a problem with community having a partnership in that you have a staff member, a desk clerk stacey harris who has gotten into a fight with one of the tenants. and what happened is instead of like firing him or suspending

him, they just transferred him to a building with family women and children and adults. what i've experienced is that he is overbearing and like abusive. the other thing, too, is i would appreciate if somebody does something about the culture of violence in the community housing partnership. i have video and i have e-mails regarding some of the incidents. i am thinking of three incidents in particular. when i've tried to address them through different people, they, they use word games to negate the problems. the other problem that i'm having is when i've tried to go pay the rent there, i get several excuses as to why i need to come back. my bank just closed.

i'm going home. it's several issues. i'm just getting concerned that will i ever be able to pay my rent? i've been paying it, but why do i have to get excuseses when i try to come pay my rent at community housing partnership? the other thing is there is also a history of problems being neglected, negated. i personally have a small stack of [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to speak in general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. madam clerk, can we go to our 3:00 p.m. special order. >> items 13 through 16 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the planning department's determination dated april 18, 2012. that project located at 61 1

buena vista west avenue is exempt from environmental review under the california environmental quality act. item 14 is the motion affirming the planning department's determination that the project is exempt. item 115 is a motion reversing the determination by the planning department. item 16 is directing preparation of findings. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, for today's hearing we will be considering the appeal of the environmental review exemption for the project at 61 1 buena vista west avenue. for this hearing, we will consider the adequacy, accuracy, sufficiency, and completeness of the planning department's determination that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review. as far as today's procedures, we will first hear from the appellants. we will have up to 10 minutes in total to describe the grounds for the appeal. we will then take public comment from individuals that wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. each speaker will have up to two minutes to present. we will then hear from the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes to

describe the grounds for their determination that the project is exempt from environmental review. following planning's presentation, we'll hear from the real party in interest who will have up to 10 minutes to present. we will hear from individuals speaking on behalf of the real party in interest, and each speaker will have up to two minutes to present. and finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal argument. colleagues, any questions or objections to proceeding in this manner as we typically do? and supervisor wiener as the supervisor for the district in which the project is located, do you have any opening remarks? >> thank you, president chiu. i am looking forward to hearing today the arguments of both sides relating to the appropriateness or lack thereof categorical exemption on this project. and i'll leave it at that. thank you. >> so, with that why don't we start the proceeding. let's hear from representative for the appellant, ms. brandt hoy.

good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board, supervisor wiener. i'm susan van holley, i'm here representing the appellants. and i'd like to start out by talking about categorical exemptions in general and of course as they apply to this project. and then i'll take some time to submit in pictures and documents for the record. i know the board is particularly familiar with categorical exemptions recently in light of the chapter 31 proceedings that are the amendments going forward. so, i won't take a lot of time. but basically the legislature that's allowed categorical exemptions because some projects are so minor that they don't warrant taking the time or spending the money to do environmental review. there is just to reason to do an environmental review for a lot of projects, thousands and thousands of them go forward in this city and around the state all the time. and so it should be. there are, however, circumstances when a project, even though it fits into a

categorical exemption class, is not appropriately categorically exempt. and that's when you have an atypical project that has potentially significant environmental impacts. and that's what's before you today. there are some complications at the outset with this project because we have -- i was thinking about -- trying to figure out what makes this project so different and what's so troubling and it starts with the fact that it's a segmentation. c-e-q-a, the california environmental quality act, requires that when a project is being reviewed, you look at the whole of the action, quote-unquote, the whole of the action of the project all at the same time. otherwise, you can segment environmental review and the cases and the statute and the guidelines say that you should not, you know, once you chop up a project into pieces, each piece may seem not to have an environmental impact but you have to look at the whole. and what happened here was 10 years ago there was a proposal to build a home on this very

small site in between these two very large historic buildings. one is an 1895 queen ann victorian, the other a 1906 combination of an edwardian and craftsman style home. one is listed and one appears to be eligible for listing. anyway, the siding question is a small lot that had a carriage house initially for the house on the corner of the queen ann victorian. and when the project was proposed, there was a lot of concern about it and there were fully discretionary review requests made to the planning department. that was settled at that time and part of the agreement between all of the neighbors with the project sponsor whos was the same project sponsor before you today, was that the third story would be removed and that's what happened. and i did have the plans that we obtained from the planning department that show -- can you see that or not? >> we can see it.

final approved plans, and i'll submit those for the record. and, so, now fast forward, the house has been built and now the project sponsor is back asking again for this story that was not approved. so, when you really look at the project at issue here, it's the project that's before you today as opposed to the project that was -- that occurred -- update approval was made 10 years ago and it was subsequently built. and the problem is that this looks like a small thing, 600 square feet plus instead of looking at the whole project, which was mitigated essentially, but the impacts of this project were mitigated by taking off that extra story. when this went to the planning commission, two of the commissioners, commissioner ant anyone i and commissioner hilless both discussed adding a story and actually denied voting against the project because they were concerned that of the impacts on this very important architecturally

significant neighborhood, that the character defining features of these two large historic homes on either side of the proposed project would be blocked by this third story. ~ there are other environmental issues relating to the blockage of views from buena vista park and blocking a view from a park -- an oceanview from a park is an unusual circumstance. also, the light and glare caused to the neighbors, the lack of privacy to the neighbors, and inconsistency to the number of the city's residential guidelines, can including compatibility with adjacent buildings and introduction of light and glare ~. and i've put them forward more in my letter. at the planning commission, commissioner sugaya agreeing -- by the way, commissioner sugaya announced for the record he's an architectural historian, that the project -- the two buildings on either side are in fact historic exceptional resources. so, we're dealing with impacts to the historic resources here

and the context is very important and c-e-q-a provides for that. to mitigate the acknowledged impacts from public views of these magnificent historic resources in this neighborhood, the planning commission attempted to make conditions to the project that would resolve some of the problems. and because of the way that it occurred, and we put that on the record, and also because of the fact that the -- this building, the site plans for the original building were not accurate and this, in fact, the property on the corner is actually setback four feet further than is represented on the site plans approved 10 years ago. so in order to protect the views of the turret one would have to move back the setback quite a bit more. adding all these things together, you have a project that potentially significant environmental impacts and unusual circumstances, and therefore you can't make a finding and the city was incorrect in making a finding that there's no possible

environmental impacts. you have a very dense project, glass, light, glare, blocked views and an architecturally significant neighborhood. that does not qualify for exemptions. >> supervisor wiener, do you have a question? >> yes, thank you, mr. president. >> can we hold the clock while you're asking the question. >> i just have a few questions and i'll let you finish your presentation. i know we have pictures left. >> great, i want to see the pictures. so, you mentioned segmentation which is also referred to piecemealing. ~ quote-unquote piecemealing. yes. >> you can't take a project and break it up in smaller views and say it's dee minute miss, so, therefore, there's no environmental impact report. yes. >> you have to take everything in aggregate. environmental review at all is what we're talking about here. >> and, so, 10 years ago there was one story added, is my

understanding? well, they stripped the house that was there and built another house. >> built another house, exactly, i'm sorry. it used to be there was -- i had a picture -- let me just put it here. that's the old house which was two. >> right, and it was replaced with the new construction. and then now they want to add an additional story? yes. >> so, if -- let's say that the current structure that was there had been there for 50 or 60 years and it was the original construction. so the carriage house. >> the carriage house was -- let's say back in the '40s or whenever it was built, they had the modern architecture. let's say it was there in that form, it had been there for a long time. in terms of your argument about segmentation or piece metionv, would you still be arguing that

adding this additional story would require the environmental review for which you're advocating? ~ i'm just trying to understand your argument. >> no, if this project sponsor came forward with a three-story project, ~ there was an agreement made that the project in this modern design with glass which is very different from the previous homes, that it could go forward if he took off that upper story. >> that was 10 years ago. yes, the same project sponsor. >> so, i understand that. i'm asking you to assume that the current -- what's currently there, if that had been there back to the beginning and there had never been any project until today -- it would not be segmentation. i don't think there is a strict definition that would be segmentation. >> you purely make an argument that segmentation, that you're saying is occurring, somehow plays into whether or not we have to do an environmental impact report or some sort of

higher level of environmental review. go ahead. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> no, please go ahead. i think you -- i'm just saying as a factor, you look at everything combined. in if herxv of fairness and figuring out what makes sense here, the key issues are potentially significant environmental impact. but -- so, that's the key. but the fact that there is segmentation means we didn't get environmental reviews 10 years ago with the whole of the action because thish other you was settled for an agreement not to put on that story. and, so, if you agree that a project may go forward, that environmental review which is essentially what happened before. and then a certain period of time goes by. and the mitigations are taken away and the agreed upon problem resurfaces, then i think that's -- it's kind of reverse segmentation. normally this comes up with someone proposes a project and only proposes part of it, but there is evidence they really are going to do more in the future.

and here it's kind of the reverse, that that is what happened. they did plan to do more in the future. and we may in five years have them come up with a first story after the third story should it be approved following environmental analysis, which it may well be. we don't know what will happen. the fact is there is a significant impact. so, segmentation is, i think it explains and helps to understand more than being the key to the environmental problem that triggers the need for environmental review. >> i guess in terms of the agreement that you mentioned and also light views and shadow, i guess the question is clearly all of those issues seem to be very appropriate and discretionary review in terms of they agreed to this 10 years ago, or this is blocking a view or causing a shadow or having impacts on light. i don't think anyone would dispute that those are extremely appropriate and the dr at the planning commission or appeal about dr to the board

of appeal which i understand is pending and stayed pending here. my question is how does that translate into a c-e-q-a issue as opposed to a dr issue? because as i know that you know better than i do, c-e-q-a is a very technical proceeding. and as opposed to dr which is much more loose about all the different considerations about how you want homes to relate to one another and how you want a neighborhood to look. so, that's why -- i've seen those references about the agreement and the light and the shadow and all of those things, which i agree are very much the issue. my question is how are they c-e-q-a issues? thank you. it's a good question. and dr, sometimes there is an overlap and that's what happens here. dr to some of you which was granted in this case, right? the planning commission did grant discretionary v. view.

and often the issues before the planning commission with design review or discretionary review as you call it here relate to design that did not raise an environmental issue. ~ review but light and glare are. the pendency in c-e-q-a talk about esthetic impacts. they talk about scenic een vistas. light and glare are environmental -- views are environmental, and impacts that restrict in the context of an historic resource which you have here on either side of this home, those are environmental issues. there is all kind of cases about them. so, it's not just a matter of -- unlike most dr situations, this one presents actual environmental issues protected by c-e-q-a and that's why called out the appendix g light and glare issues. but as to esthetic issues and views relating to any kind of scenic vista which we have

here. we also have a specific c-e-q-a statute about historic resources with a guideline talking about impacting the surrounding of the resources. you have three planning commissioners who had the opinion that this particular addition to this particular project at this site -- it's a great house. the problem is the site, it doesn't fit into this particular location. they have an opinion which gives you substantial evidence per se that there is a potential environmental impact. so, it's not your run of the mill situation here. >> so, is it your position that the statements that the planning commissioners, i'm assuming you're talking about the setback they required, that that is automatically substantial evidence of an environmental impact requiring higher than a cat ex? we have more than that, we have commissioner antonii and

commissioner hillis, the character defining roof lines of the a jaytion entitle homes. it is not just the setback, but the whole third floor edition. >> so, the statements by planning commissioners, you believe, constitutes substantial evidence that basically invalidates a cat ex? in this particular -- not every time, but in this time and it's actually a casey handled, architecture heritage soresction very urs county of monterey says a statement regarding impacts due to historic resource. commissioners appointed to the planning and land use expertise, [speaker not understood], pocket protecters versus sacramento says the same thing. so, it is -- the point of the commissioners for their expertise. ~ appointed if they opine on an environmental issue and it's not solved, it's not [speaker not understood] to have a categorical exemption work. there need to be a study and analysis made. when you have a project in this important of a site with this kind of impact.

>> if you have planning commissioners who order say a setback or some other form of discretionary review to make an adjustment based on the esthetics of the neighborhood and the home and the interaction with the surrounding homes, that seems to open up a pretty broad category of possible higher levels of environmental review for relatively small home projects. if that's what your position is. and i think one of the issues here, i know you and i have spoken about this. and i've spoken with both sides about it, is having to do with precedent because clearly when this board, as you know, takes on actions on c-e-q-a appeals, the planning department can certainly take its lead -- take our lead and it could impact a wide array of projects which is why it's important to apply c-e-q-a within the four corners of that law. i would like to start with

the last thing you said, supervisor. this board has to apply c-e-q-a within the four corners of the law. it may have impacts on the city projects, but it's state law. so, the city can't make a decision respectfully -- >> i disagree. -- what the impacts might be. i think, supervisor, you may be spelling trouble as i came to lecture my son about, not that you're my son's age. new way, you're making too big of a statement about something that is very factual. this isn't a normal situation. it's not just oh, let's design wise we think it would look better, which that's what the planning commission might do in other situations. the fact that they changed the setback or felt that a design would be better a different way, that's not what's going on here. we have a tiny lot between two large homes, and lot coverage and the light and glare and the impacts on the adjacent properties are significant. and that's not a normal design situation. so, i think that your worry

about setting precedent, while i understand it, is not really applicable here. i don't think that's what we're doing. we've got a record that's going to [speaker not understood] for specific situation that's unusual. you don't have a lot of 1900 historic, you know, extant resources. and the ones you do have you should protect. but that's a limited number. it's not a building. that just happens to be more than 50 years old and, et cetera. these are unusual circumstances. this is a very unusual lot and we also have the issue of the park view, et cetera, and a lot of views from the road of these architecturally significant huge homes. >> but in term of the protected views, i can't remember the term you used in the brief, i'm sure you saw the planning department's response where the department indicated that because the views that are at issue are not -- and the phrases they use were designated scenic