how we handle the issue of cumulative impacts. a significant impact under ceqa is as you know a substantial adverse impact that is a demonstrable impact, so when it gets to issues such as neighborhood character which are ones that are matters that are more subjective then the issues that we are compelled to look at under ceqa as significant impacts we -- you know, there are specific questions in ceqa that talk about land use character. changes that are occurring in a neighborhood where construction is taking place over whatever period of time where houses are changing in a matter that is consistent

with the planning code would not in our practice as a planning department be considered a cumulative impact. we have procedures that need to be considered. we have other procedures outside of ceqa where such topics are considered. that is through the building permit process, the project review process, through design review, through discretionary review. this project did go through discretionary review at the planning commission. anytime an approval is made the issues and neighborhood character have to be considered so there are multiple mechanisms outside of the ceqa process to consider the issues. they are not issues that rise to a level of demonstrable significance under ceqa that we would be

raising as significant impacts. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar did you have any other questions? >> [inaudible] >> okay. supervisor tang. >> thank you. just because this question has been brought up on a couple of occasions i just wanted to address it since supervisor mar brought it up publicly and the question around the interim zoning controls put in place and indeed because of the sponsor of the legislation lives within 500 feet and not able to place borders close to his home and that's my understanding and what is significant what planning department mentioned and go through the conditional review but not change the determination on the exemption. >> thank you supervisor tang for that clarification. and at this time seeing no other members on the roster we will now move forward to the presentation for the project sponsor or their representative. you will have 10 minutes.

>> could we reset the clock? >> it hasn't started yet. >> okay. >> good afternoon. my name is brett gladstone and a lawyer with handen bridget and behind me is the owner of the property with his cousin vicki and you have heard there are speculative developers there. i would like to talk about marvin. he's here and we can clear that up a little bit. first of all marvin and his cousin vicki live nearby and in a rental unit on 16th street and 19th street. their intent was to build here and move into each of these. marvin and his wife and two children wanted a large enough place for their children and visiting grandparents. the existing one story building with a basement is only 1500 square feet and

occupied by its owner and her boyfriend mr. roberts until 2013 when they moved out. there were no evictions and vacant since they moved out. it's in poor condition, a lot of violations and they didn't have the money to renovate it. it's a cottage and of course it was not deemed historic. a picture of it is there. oh and could you please turn on the -- down at sfgtv would you turn on the photographs please. >> it's showing. >> great. and let's look at the new building proposed. the new building sits between the building on the left and if you point to the appellant's building and to the right those owners support. the building in the middle as you can see has a number of setbacks both at the ground floor and top. if you point to the setbacks that face mr. martienez. a number of extra setbacks to protect that window that sits there.

there's a huge window on the other side of mr. martienez's top floor not shown here. here is a close up of the additional setbacks made this weekend to cut back the building on the right to make sure there is further light and privacy protections for mr. martienez there on the left. we're sorry that the mediation didn't work out. as you know my clients was overseas attending his father's heart attack and couldn't make it but sincerely tried. the reason the chins are not going to move in here because they wanted a place large enough. the planning commission made a number of changes however and elizabeth -- marvin's wife was not comfortable given the acrimony unfortunately that occurred at the neighborhood meetings and she is not comfortable moving into the neighborhood. they will have to find a place

someplace else and we wish them good luck. whether they will be rented or sold i'm not sure. as you know know the district is 800 to 1200 feet away and three to four football fields away and pointed out by supervisor tang even if the lot was in the special interim district you created it may create a conditional use permit but it doesn't increase the amount of environmental review and the planning department doesn't feel that the review through a conditional use permit would have turned out any differently than the environmental review through the discretionary review hearing that was held and i think that's important to keep in mind. this building is old but it's not historic. it's a great under utilization of its lot. the lot allows four stories and a fifth story at the back down the hill. it allows

a great deal more square footage than proposed. it's a single story building on a lot that's allowed 40 feet and we just don't have enough land in this city where there is an opportunity to do two units reasonably sized i think the city needs to take advantage of that. the value by the way of appellant's condominium next door is about 1.3 million under zillow and the value of the planning department and the commission found of the site of the current old building is 1.5 million so they're not that different. again the units are not monster units. they were very large when they went to the planning commission but the planning commission as you know took out one entire floor or recommended that it be taken out which was done to get it passed. took out parking and 1600

square feet of living area. i talked to commissioner richards and he and catherine moore, two of the appointed members took a lot of free time to make sure that the building was cut down sufficiently to make it neighborhood compatible. as a result of the efforts the fellow commissioners passed it unanimously in the present form which by the way we have cut back over the weekend to address the light well of appellants further than the commission did at that time. talking a little about ceqa at the moment. it is true that this displacement of the substantial number of people in a neighborhood necessitating the construction of replacement housing is by itself a significant environmental effect triggering an eir. the

appellant mentions that but ceqa says it has to be displacement of a substantial number of people necessitating the new housing. there was no displacement on the lot. there was only one couple lived on it and they owned it and that's important to keep in mind. the appellant also says the project is going to cause a bunch of millionaires living in the neighborhood, people that are not like him. they're the people they would rather not see in their neighborhood, but with all due respect to them he and his partner roxanne have spoke. they're both attorneys, hard working. i think they will look and be much like the people that occupy the new condominiums. the appellant has a condominium. there are new ones here and the future owners or renters will be a double income family and maybe lawyers too. what is important

is neither appellant's unit or the current unit on the property is an affordable unit. there is nothing affordable being removed by any standard including the city's standard of affordability. i think what is important to keep in mind that under ceqa one has to wonder whether the appellant's own building would receive an exemption or perhaps a negative declaration instead. after all their building -- no, they didn't build it but it takes up 100% of the length of the lot with side setback on the rear only on one side. it wouldn't be allowed under today's zoning. on the overhead i would like to put a list of people that supported this at the planning commission and couldn't be here today but there will be speakers in any event a little later. >> excuse me for a second. i

hear a lot of talking in the audience. can you please basically if you need to talk can you take it outside? thank you. continue. >> okay. there's a well known ceqa decision by topanga beach renters versus department of general services in 1976 and it says it emphasizes in order to require a negative declaration or eir the government activity, the approval has to have an adverse effect on groups of people broadly and not particular people, and that there needs to be substantial evidence in the record that will this occur, not mere speculation, not talking about birds that are there, but what kind of birds? what kind of wildlife? is it endangered? is it a special habitat? and we

see no efz evidence of it. there is a tree in the backyard and it won't be disturbed. there is a dead tree on the street and replaced with a larger one than required by code. if you look at the drawing you will see the large setback and not unlike the appellant's building and we expect with the plantings going on there and some referred to as the open space will be there to look at. again the topanga case says the issue is not whether the project will adversely effect particular persons but adversely affect the environment. all government activity have some direct or indirect adverse effects on some people but that's not the issue. i think that if your board was to take the position that this lot with the lots that are not -- this lot and the lots that

are in the district that you created nearby create a cumulative impact and it's dangerous to do because there is a great deal of development in noe valley and pacific heights and telegraph potrero hill and oneself we. >> >> we say they're not related and new projects -- >> thank you. your time sup at this time. thank you. so at this time if there are any members of the public who would like to speak in support of the project sponsor please come forward. you will have to two minutes each. >> can i have a translator? i speak in cantonese. >> okay. can you give us a minute? any other members of

the public. we need a minute to make sure we have a translator for you. are there any other members of the public? . can you please line up here to my left? okay. thank you. >> hi. thank you. so the appellant mentions frequently the cumulative effect of this building and i think that is exactly what i think you should be considering. in this case though the cumulative effect of not building as being part of making the building process in san francisco risky and hostile. and under building. we actually know what the cumulative effect is. it's high prices and

housing insecurity and displacement. it's easy to support building in general and oppose displacement in general. why isn't it easier to build? i wish someone would make it easier for more people to build houses so we wouldn't run out of houses. now is the time to take action to make it easy to build houses and not stand in the way of us expanding our capacity for people. another consideration is neighborhood character so for people that have housing security neighborhood character means a cute neighborhood but for the rest of us, for 70% of san franciscans who rent instead of own neighborhood character means fear of eviction, crowding, living in substandard conditions, living hand to mouth and the associated strain on personal lives. that is the character of san francisco neighborhoods right now and yes, you could oppose the project

and preserve the neighborhood character if that's how you want 70% of us without housing security to live. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. a translator is on the way so anyone else that wants to speak that doesn't need a translator please come forward. >> hi. i think that sonia touched on i lot of important issues and one of the core things to remember this was over a million dollar house. this is not reducing the quantity of affordable housing available in any shape, or shorm and adding another unit, another family that could potentially live in the city that right now we're all getting squeezed out and the more density we can have the territory the character of the. >> >> city will have and a couple comments about the people living in the housing and i think that

is a little presumptuous. who is going to be living in the million dollar cottage that was falling down before and even to make it inhabitant take funds and this house needed extensive rehabilitation and we're in a true housing crisis and we need to increase the housing stock and this is not reducing any affordable housing. this is not taking any low income housing off of the market. it's adding a additional potential unit and bringing more affordability potentially to the city. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> i support this project. i study about the buildings, the permits and the maps, and the drawings. they match the neighborhood. they match the riend and the left-hand side of

the building. the new building and proposal matches both sides and [inaudible] of the left-hand side and the right-hand side and match the height. i don't know why the people doesn't like it. i don't know why. increase the value the neighborhood. increase about the [inaudible] of the city and bring in lots of tax right side. they match everything. i don't know why the people are against it. i am in favor of it. >> thank you. next speaker please. and so those in need of translation will have four minutes. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i am so happy to see that there will be a change in which of the tenants will become the

landlord. [speaking foreign language] >> >> and shows the city is ready and be the landlord in the city. [speaking foreign language] >> i hope the city can do everything they can to encourage the neighbor to let the new landlord to do whatever he wants to establish the new building. [speaking foreign language] >> i know that landlord will think the same way as i am wishing everyone in his family

to live in san francisco. [speaking foreign language] >> i hope everyone can give a chance to this landlord and don't [inaudible] him. [speaking foreign language] >> and i believe that if this landlord build his building in this neighborhood and that house this neighborhood develop too. [speaking foreign language] >> and that might help the city get more tax as the price -- house price are going up too. [speaking foreign language]

>> and when the tenants move to the new apartments they can actually give their existing housing to the people that need it. [speaking foreign language] >> i hope the neighborhood can give this chance to the new landlord. [speaking foreign language] >> and this is my own experience too like many years ago i bought my house and my neighbor welcomed me to do that and encouraged me to open my house. [speaking foreign language] >> so now i am very close to my neighbor and i am so happy to live there. [speaking foreign language] . >> >> so i hope the new landlords in san francisco do great and

live happily in our city. >> thank you. before we move to the next speaker if mr. law can come back and could you please say in chinese that if anyone needs an intrptser in the future and they know they're coming to testify at the board they can call the clerk's office or the district supervisor so we can be better prepared the next time. [speaking foreign language] >> thank you. and is there anyone else who needed an interpreter as well for public comment? okay. for just a second i wanted to acknowledge -- recognize supervisor campos before we move on with public comment. >> thank you madam president. this is not on the appeal

issue. it's actually on this question of the interpretation and i don't know what the right way when to raise it but i actually think that it should be the other way around. i think there should be translation available as a matter of practice that people shouldn't have to call in advance if they're going to speak. i think that we should have translators ready to go for -- certainly for spanish and chinese and i would simply ask that to the extent that's possible that we make that practice going forward. >> thank you supervisor campos. supervisor christensen. >> i was just going to say a number of us have bilingual aids and we could coordinate that and they could be available during meetings. >> and thank you and we also have bilingual supervisors just to throw it out there and madam can you come. we're going to

begin this item. >> thank you. i appreciate it. my comments are more general than the ones proceeding and addressed to you the leaders of the city. the mayor has said we're going to add 30,000 units. we are talking here about a tiny little unit and look at all of the time and taxpayer expense that is involved in approving one unit. my question is where are you going to find the bandwidth to abide by things you have approved such for instance the priority development areas where you have considerable density? where are you going to put so many people if each time you're going to have this situation? another thing that concerns me and comes more in the form of a question than a comment is that if you have a lot of supervisors who of course

are going to say okay not in my backyard because of the blow back they would receive. for instance supervisor campos already said not in my backyard and therefore what mechanism do you have -- you supervisors have to speed this process to solve the situation? i don't see it. what is going to happen in my opinion is that the priority development areas which was approved for example supervisor mar was at the meetings they attended -- anyway, the question is what are you doing about it? thank you so much. >> thank you very much ma'am. next speaker please. >> hello. i am coming here today with my and we support

this project and have a large family in san francisco and value that we add to san francisco. this is extremely good if you have a family -- [inaudible] in your family and help each other out in the family so this is something that we contribute to the san francisco. of course if you have a large family here you need to have a comfortable housing for living, so if you think large family shouldn't be here large families are criminal then i'm going to say no because we definitely not criminal person and we add value to san francisco, so if you can take care of your parents, your kids and have a good family here, living here, then i think san francisco is even more beautiful city than before, so i'm going to let you know that please allow this project and please value our family value again. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker

please. >> good afternoon. i think housing is very critical in this city especially i walk through all of the neighborhoods and i see all of the cardboard boxes and people sleeping on the streets and it also just brings up -- you know, like education. i mean all of the lives that are being lost as a result of miseducation in the city is just ridiculous especially you have a piece of legislation that has been sitting on the floor for two years from a sitting president. it just seems like if president obama said that we lagged behind in math, science and technology i don't see why the board is ignoring it.

(change of captioners).