be and the teacher said we're one short. do you want to do it? i said no again. it was my first mature decision. i also have a little problem there at the church too because i couldn't believe in only one catholic church to get to god. i couldn't believe in that only way. right now the american jewish youth are having a hard time. the israeli leader speaking with focused tongue and bombing and destroying homes and referred to mowing the grass and the palestinians and depriving them from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we're the united states are an enabler

and letting this happen. we need a different voice from the jewish adult population to save their own children, our children, our future. here in san francisco about 45 years ago in this building an a tallian american roman catholic put a gay man in one of your seats. right now there's a bishop here in san francisco that wants people to sign -- >> thank you sir. are there any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment at this time? you have already spoken sir. thank you. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] okay. now it is time for our 3:00 p.m. special order. we have a appeal of ceqa categorical exemption for this project at 53 states street.

madam clerk can you call 18 through 21. >> these comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determine aigdz of categorical exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued by the planning department on january 8, 2015 for the proposed project at 53 states street. motion to affirm the determination that the 53 states street is categorical exemption and 20 determination and 21 is motion for findings. >> colleagues i understand that supervisor wiener needs to recuse himself for the matter. is there a motion? moved by supervisor christensen and seconded by supervisor tang. without objection this motion passes. thank you supervisor wiener. okay. at this time for this hearing we will be considering the adequacy and accuracy and completeness and

efficiency of the planning department determination that the proposed project at 53 states street is categorical exemption from the environmental review under ceqa so without objection we will proceed as follows. 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant or representative and up to two minutes per speaker in favor of the appeal and 10 minutes from the planning department. up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives. up to two minutes per speaker in opposition of the appeal and finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or representatives. colleagues are there any objections to this proceeding? seeing none we are now in the process of having this hearing and at this time we will have the presentation from the appellant or representation. sir can you please identify

yourself? you will have 10 minutes. >> [inaudible] my name is hector martienez and a appellant and resident of state street. i live there with my partner and two boys who are born and now raised in san francisco. the project at issue at 53 states street and this project is located in a neighborhood recently described by the "san francisco chronicle" as a leaf on clarify and fanciful and quirky and modest size homes and wildlife. one only needs to walk up and there are plenty of trees and wildlife and squirrels. the project sponsors propose that the demolition of a small cottage to build two 2200 plus condominiums in a two car parking garage of the project would greatly expand the footprint of the structure,

reduce the front yard from 25 to 25 feet to five by 10-foot yard or actually more of a patio. eliminate the side yard all together and reduce the bark yard and -- backyard and be 15 feet taller than the structure in place at the moment. the plans were submitted in 2013 and between now and my partner have attended four meetings with the architect, have a dozen meetings with the neighbors, two hearings with the planning commission and one failed attempt at mediation. we have attempt to engage in mediation in good faith and hopes to find a solution with the project sponsors but unfortunately that didn't happen. during that time our concerns have remained generally the same and expressed again to the project sponsors that we

didn't approve of the mass or the large mass of the new structure. we did request that to receive a reduction in the mass in line with the character of the street and preservation of open space. unfortunately those concerns have been ignored by speculators interested in making a profit than protecting the neighborhoods. now the consequences. the ceqa exemption is unlawful due to the site specific and cumulative impacts of this project with other projects in the unusual neighborhood. there are at least six developments in proximity to the 53 states street project. 176, 178 state street, 190 and 192 museum street project and the other projects. this project will

create pressure on nearby vintage homes and destroy the neighborhood character. the oversight development like this one in the neighborhood are walling off 53 states street to the detriment of yards and side yards and trees and greenery, wildlife and i mean squirrels and bees and hummingbirds and other animals in the neighborhood which is very unique in san francisco. at 53 states street relatively affordable house is being demolished and replaced with non affordable housing. now this board has recognized the unique character of my neighborhood and has taken extra ordinary steps to protect it and the board may look at [inaudible] heights when adopting controls last month to

protect the community and aesthetics and under assault of increasing numbers of large homes and we incorporate the legislation here know by reference. the cumulative impact is referenced in the "san francisco chronicle" article titled "growing controversy" developers with big plans descend on the area. now this legislation is clearly substantial evidence of the significant environmental impact. what we see here is a solution for this board is that this board obviously didn't include 53 states street in the protective legislation and unique location within 500 feet of the residents of supervisor scott wiener but today the board -- [inaudible] interim controls to protect the neighborhood. what i am asking today is consistent with that

legislation and what we ask is that this project be required to comply with the ceqa and have an report to assess what significant -- to address the significant environmental impacts that we in our neighborhood today. i respectfully request that the board grant the appeal to grant environmental review. thank you. >> thank you. and at this time are there any members of the public who would like to speak in support of the appellant? you will have two minutes. please come forward. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is henry iceler. yes, i would like to urge you to over turn the categorical exemption. the building doesn't fit with

the neighborhood and the boundaries are always going to get pushed. the planning department seems to be in a place where they sort of pass everything through, and i can understand there are reasons for that but before it's too late i hope that this board will see the need for some management, some governance over the growth of really all of our neighborhoods i am sure but i am here about this one right now want i guess that's all i have to say. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you sir. next speaker please. >> gfn good afternoon

supervisors and president breed and i am chris parks and a tenant on state street. i am here to request that the board of supervisors consider an environmental review for this project and i am very concerned about the effect this is having on the street overall. can i use the projector? >> sfgtv. thank you. just to show you this is 53 states street. i don't know if it's going to come out or not.

okay. okay. you can see just up the street the small streets. this is just up the street from 53 states street and 61 and 65 streets street and smaller homes and on the other end there are backyards that have the character of states street. i live across from the museum where there is a large development going on that will highlight -- i am going to skip through some slides here because i am running out of time. this is either picture of 53 states street. this is the development that is going to replace 53 states street and then this is the article that -- what is happening to the street prompting this recall in the newspaper. it's a demonstration of cumulative effects on the street and this legislation is sponsored by our supervisor and our supervisor quoted "this

neighborhood is absorbing more city and even more -- amazing about the neighborhood is the beauty and green space and you can have both and create housing which i advocacy for and [inaudible] >> sir. thank you very much. your time is up. can we have the next speaker come forward please? >> good afternoon everybody. my name is diewk dolan and live on states street with my partner joel smart and in the neighborhood for over 20 years and i grew up in hawaii and we have a saying like this. [speaking foreign language] . that means we have to take care of our land and one thing i love about the corona heights area where i live there is so much activity of animals and birds, a lot of walkways and the falcon steps and the other steps and the plants and trees around

and recently we see hawks and attacking pigeons and which i love to see and like the mutual of o hama everyday and i like to recommend that the board take a look and review the environmental -- things that could happen in the neighborhood. i just hate to lose the uniqueness of the neighborhood and thank you and have a great day. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is roxannea and i live on states street with my partner and my two boys. [speaking foreign language] . no. so it's his fourth birthday today and i don't think he wants to be here and spent his birthday at city hall but we're here because we care about our neighborhood and care about the neighborhood we're trying to raise our boys in. we actually

purchased this home when i was 40 weeks preggant and you know you make decisions based on emotions and we made the decision to purchase the home based on our very deep emotional reaction to that street. it looked like paradise and our home looked like a tree house. we're about two blocks from castro and market and it's a refuge and not just a refuge for us but for all the neighbors that live on that street. i don't think i would have purchased a home there if two years from now if this neighborhood is allowed to be turned into what the neighborhoods want to turn it into and i think we're exactly the kind of family that you all want living in san francisco so the city would lose out. we are

civically engaged conscientious bicultural family and we're driven out by the development proposed on the street. the last thing i want to say about this is the process. we spent an inordinate amount of time participating in the process. it has been frustrating and offensive at times. we have been offended by the developers and the way they treated us. please look at the impact of this project from a cumulative perspective. you cannot look at this by a case by case perspective. you won't able to see the grave environmental impact -- >> thank you very much. okay. at this time we will have up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the planning department. >> hello hi good afternoon supervisors. my name is genie pooling and environmental planner with the department and joining me today is sara jones

and environmental review officer and the preservation planner. we sent you two memos from the appellant and the department continues to find that the project is exempt from ceqa. the decision before you today is whether to uphold the department's decision to issue a categorical exemption and deny the appeal or return it back to the department for additional environmental review. the project site is on the south side of states street and castro and douglas streets and two story approximately 1500 square feet home setback from the property line and involves demolition of the existing building and construction of a four story with two residents and the total is 5480 square

feet. the department considered whether it would have significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances such as historical impacts and found done and issued an exemption and went through discretion's review before the planning condition and during that it was modified and the number of spaces were reduced from four to two and both units was reduced in size and setback farther from the property line and the planning commission approved the project by a vote of 6-0. the department responds to the issues raised by the appellants. we have five main points. the first issue raised concerns the exemption class. the appellant states that the subsection of the project relies upon is not specified. under ceqa state guidelines class 1l2 demolition of a single family home that is

not a historic resource is exempt from environmental review and determined that the single family residential on the site is not a historical resources. under ceqa guidelines construction of up to six dwelling units in an urban area is exempt from ceqa and demolition of a single family residential and construction of two unit residential structure is exempt from environmental review under class one and class three. the second issue raised by the appellant concerns cumulative impacts. ceqa guidelines define them as two or more individual effects from separate projects which when considered together are considerable or compound to increase or other environmental effects. the cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past,

present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. the site is approximately 800 feet east of the interim zoning control district which requires conditional use authorization for large residential projects on corona heights and the appellant state this is is evident that the development creates an unusual circumstance. however the trend towards large and denser housing is widespread throughout san francisco. these interim controls would not -- even if this property were under the interim -- were in the interim zoning control area it would not necessitate necessary environmental review. it would be exempt under class one and class three. while these controls may focus development away from the interim zoning area the appellant has not described unusual circumstances or provided any evidence to support of the claim that the project in combination with other projects would result in

significant cumulative impacts under ceqa. the planning code guides lands use so densities and have compatibility and neighborhood character. while the project is larger than other buildings on streets street it's consistent with the planning code. the commission considered the project in the context of dris creationary review and approved the project and with other projects is not unusual in the neighborhood and would not result in significant cumulative impacts. the third issue raised by the appellant concerns housing cost and displacement and states that the project's inconsistency with scplans policies constitute significant impacts under ceqa and the elimination of affordable housing is an unusual circumstance. issues related to the cost of housing are socio-economic and not physical and relevant to ceqa that

they're connected to physical environmental impacts. land impacts are considered consignificant if they interfere with any of these things and example of such plan that addressing the physical environment is the bay area quality management district's clean air plan. the applicant has presented no evidence that any unusual circumstances would cause the project to conflict with any such plan. the fourth issue raised by the appellant concerns piecemealing or dividing a project into smaller projects. a project is defined under ceqa as entitlement of issuance to a person and they're not piecemealed because these projects are sponsored by different individuals and are not functionally related to one another. the final issues raised concern loss of open space and impact on trees and wildlife. it would reduce the open space at the front of the

lot and remove a tree in the public right-of-way on the site. these are not unusual circumstances that would result in significant impacts. in summary they have not presented substantial evidence to supportlet conclusion there are reasons to do this and remove the exemption and the project sponsor hasn't presented evidence there is significant environmental impacts due to unusual circumstances. this complies with the requirements of ceqa and the project is appropriately exempt from environmental review. therefore i urge you to uphold the department of's exemption and deny the appeal. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you very much. and at this time -- at this time i would like to recognize supervisor tang. >> thank you. just a couple of questions for the planning department. although i know

much was covered in the planning memo just for the public knowledge. going back to the appellants and one of the first issues has to do with the exemption class in terms of class one and class three. there were some administrative mix up which certain boxes were not checked on the form and i am wondering if the department could address that and whether that issue and oversight impacts this project's exemption from ceqa? >> thank you supervisor tang. yes, the department's categorical exemption form has check boxes for class one and class three and when we issued the exemption the only class three was checked and it was an administrative error. it should have been class one. later on during the discretionary review the planner that prepared it claimed it was class one, but

the truth it really is class one and three but this inconsistency was an oversight and doesn't affect the determination because if a project meets that it's exempt from further environmental review regardless when the determination was made. thank you. >> one other question having to do with the unusual circumstances and i know that is one of the problems you consider in terms whether you can be exempt from ceqa so the appellant just brought up a number of projects happening in the area, most of which are going to receive this as well, so in terms of the unusual circumstances i know appellants are making the case that also combined with the cumulative impacts of the surrounding projects that there maybe again a cumulative impact so i wanted to know from planning then given there are a number of projects

coming forth all being exempted from review if you could kind of explain what qualifies as an unusual circumstance? and just e elaborate further why there is no cumulative impact? >> good afternoon. i am the environmental review officer. i will start with the questions of cumulative impacts and unusual circumstances are two separate issues of consideration under ceqa. with regard to the cumulative impacts there is an exception in the categorical exemptions. it basically says that none of the categorical exemptions would apply if there are cumulative impacts related to multiple projects within the same area that are significant.

there are -- as were mentioned a number of projects that are proposed in this general neighborhood. all of these projects are projects that are being processed and considered under the planning code they are consistent with the planning code. they are pretty standard and common single family home additions or demolitions and new constructions. they are happening all over the city. this is an active development time. there is no evidence that these bring up any cumulative significant impacts as they're defined under ceqa and that is there is not any essential evidence there are demonstrable impacts to the many topics under ceqa and yes there's a lot of activity in this area. yes,

there is change happening in this neighborhood and throughout the city. change is not in of itself a significant impact under ceqa. as to unusual circumstances that is -- there's not a specific definition in ceqa for unusual circumstances specifically because they are in fact unusual, but in this case a project that we're talking about that is consistent with the planning code, whose size and character are addressed through other mechanisms in the city such as discretionary review. also it's a type of permit that is clearly categorical exemption. there is no indication of any unusual circumstance. the typical one we see is a project affecting a historical resource. that is

not the case here. as i mentioned we are seeing many, many projects throughout the city. it's not unusual in any way. >> thank you very much. >> thank you and at this time we will open it up to the project sponsor -- >> president breed -- >> oh i'm sorry. supervisor mar. >> thanks. i just wanted to ask the question the appellant brought up and acknowledged a couple of meetings ago we designated the special nature of the corona heights neighborhood but it didn't include this neighborhood. is that because it was so close to supervisor wiener's home? is that why this area states street was included in that special zone? >> i can't speak to how the boundaries of that special interim control area were set. it is my understanding that clearly this project site is close enough to supervisor wiener's home that he was

required to recuse himself from this consideration, but i cannot speak to the establishment of the boundaries of that area. i do believe that is the circumstance though that it is related to the proximity of the supervisor's home. >> if i can just ask if it's within that zone the new policy would require a new conditional use process. would that have impacted this decision? >> it would not. conditional use approval is something that goes before the planning commission but it doesn't change the environmental review determinations. >> and mr. martienez makes an argument that instead of looking at a cumulative impacts of the loss of character of neighborhoods like corona hietds and the number of projects in his documents that you planning are using a drop in the bucket