preparation of an eir is not warranted. in one process-related issue is the circulation of the pmnd. the department circulated it for a 20-day review period, consistent with the ceqa requirements. the project is not a statewide, regional, or area significance as defined by ceqa, therefore it did not require a 30-day review period or circulation to the state agencies cited by the appellants. the second process-related issue is compliance with ceqa prior to project approval, which the city did. initially, in july of 2010, the department determined that the product was exempt from ceqa and issued a certificate of determination of exemption. the department found that the proposed change of use with minor alterations, the building would not result in any significant environmental impact. at that time, their policy was not required pursuant to the district ceqa guidelines that were in a factory that the assumption determination was appropriately issue. after the department issued the exemption determination, members of the public

an alternative. and the adoption of the final eir is anticipated next fall. we're already working on the 30% design in cooperation with sfmta. it looks as though this project is now ranked as the highest priority nationally for federal small starts. it can be a reality. not very far behind it is the geary project eir which is now going through the same stages as the van ness one. we're now in the throes of during the capacity modeling that needs to be done on these projects. four different alternatives. not that different from van ness. that project has a number of additional challenges, in particular the intersections of fillmore and masonic, which of course is under the other street and generate some challenges and some opportunities. i will continue to keep you posted on progress on that project. we have also been making significant progress on the state of the sentences the transportation plan. this is our 30-year look at transportation needs. it feeds right into the regional efforts on the regional transportation plan. and we completed the first phase of

an eir was done on a 12-story units on the time. a project was submitted for environmental review in 1995. the letters of 1998 -- the 1995 application was still open. the developer was not being responsive to the department's concerns. there was a development proposal. first, they wanted to do a four- story live-work building on one parcel and a single-family home on another parcel. then they changed their minds and decided in january that it wanted a two-lot subdivision with a portion of the lot for townhomes. in 1998, the revised the project again to make a three-lot subdivision and development of lower calhoun terrorist as a single-family home. the department was dealing with development proposals throughout the process. president chiu: i want to make one comment. it was interesting how, for this analysis, you do not refer to the 20% slope, but in 1998, reading your own the karmas letter, it says that while it is true that minor projects are exempt from ceqa, this one has over 20% slope so we are required to review it. since the

this project did not hear -- an eir would be required for the subdivision. ceqa offers a general exclusion that says if there is no potential for significant effects on the environment, then they can be excluded from ceqa review. president chiu: the suggestion that if you have a slow > 20%, that is a major alteration. that does not mean anything to you. >> the reason that class 15 was not used is there is a presumption of development associated with that class. we have no the bomb a proposal before us, as there was in 1998. it would be purely speculative to assume some sort of development. there is nothing at this point. president chiu: let me address something that was just raised. you are saying that you do not see any environmental impact as a result of this subdivision. we just heard testimony from the geothermal experts to suggest that if we subdivide this, the stability of one lot depends on the other and that it are interlinked. if we were to take those facts as true, he does that not create issues from your perspective with regard to environmental re

and that requires an eir. moreover, what the -- i will reserve that argument. i have not had an opportunity to -- i know that the department came out with a response to some of these issues we raised today. i have not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly. but i understand that the argument is the city is not committed to the project. and i'd just do not sent see how a $4.4 million loan over a period of 55 years is anything less than a commitment to the project. i would also point out that the notice of exemption, while the department may believe there is evidence that this is a case that does not require a- declaration, i would like to point out that that flies in the face that this is a the mitigated neg dec. it is the notice of exemption that is referred to as the -- it has no practical implication or it does not shed any light on the necessity of the mitigated neg dec. unless the supervisors have any questions, i will move on to highlight the arguments in the conditional use. first, the commission improperly authorized the conditional use before the boa

we will up ould the decision to issue and fmnd and returned the product to the department for an eir. i would like to turn things over to andrea who will conclude the presentation and wrap things up. >> thank you. i am with the planning department. the department found that the proposed conversion of a 29-room hotel to a 25-room group housing units includes a sud would not result in a significant effect on the environment. the litigation measures have been agreed to buy the project sponsor and a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. the department's response to the primary concerns raised by the appellate can be grouped into the four main points. two related to the environmental review process and two related to the fmnd. the department maintains that the preliminary maintained negative declaration was properly circulated. and the city complied with the california environmental quality act, or ceqa, prior to any approval. in response to the substance- related concerns, the department asserts that the project density would not re i

items we will discuss today will be brought to you following the publication and certification of an eir in the early part of next calendar year. each item will be brought to you as an individual action items so that you can a evaluate each of the items on its own merit, and as the sets as a comprehensive whole in the planning process. we will talk about this, and when i talk about this we talk about what they wanted, in the citizens planning task force, and now we will talk about how the planning staff has worked with them to try to achieve what it is that they have actually identified as their desired end of this planning process. we will talk about five things today, actually for topics, one of which has a couple of pieces to it. we will talk about the social heritage districts, which go beyond the borders of western soma. we are fortunate to have representatives from both of those social heritage groups, the first, hopefully we will be able to get the film figured out in terms of where this is that. we do not have any way to show a dvd, do we? thank you. we will try to get this figur

i n't ink elyonean cdersend t dep of eir ss. it' an azing i t stork ne rs tepf r four . t' ang earsor in isonur d shs nomin hom onrs i fligon rig now ith r sh n rent intom omightonyo wored a lt of

ut an o tomia tassp ranrsakinli an eir tecon ttrait tr toan thin wor ronaitrerieo th timth agastor therehe livart buh tadi. ts tar w iivut. ra is ominbudind t'sar ionna. rasine ld.na . [ le aounc ] drking smohie th nvegeble tritn? ♪♪[ anc drngmoe ngee it ♪♪ [ gg ] straerrbana! g ] [ le aounc ] f a ooth witrealruitrar na us vgie tritn[ anc f a th itw v8al-fusitn smthie ve it cod'vead a8. v8ussmie hey,coheckvet ou a e's ing e mrclea gic aserath rubb y, ckouve h rd os it, g t i mrven'ea sec oneerp clh e.bb wh h's t o wor, i arn'nd t sinsenecl thatt reves time mo soawhscum ter sorpe ar tin atres me mo oaanum it sme om oer sce. itis n fr out spa! ant ono sman,. it'srom ter ace. it n fr thut're paiens onn inrgaltic clnlin s minoion.n,'sm r e.the nsoninalcclinmi n.ey' her toleanp thunivse. ohthe tchescru ersy' erare ienstotoo?anthiv. ye, lo at thatreastcohn mee .heruse nso? evrybo's i onyehe cloansptacy,an.atastcme evcanbot ev i tru mysonf. csp y,. [ ale nounr ] . cln mac erer ki hen d baan screvbersruys [ e un] clmaer ki n thba clecr is rst ofhis rld. th les ofs d. sherd: ck tthispeci editn

during the adoption hearings, and other first thing that you would see would be the eir and hearings on the certification of an er the -- eir that we're getting much closer to having a draft ready for public review and comment. with that introduction, i would like to come up before i leave the podium and come back if you have any questions, i would like to think the vast array of consultants, everybody from asian neighborhood design to sifel consulting, the hundreds of hours the community have spent in the representatives on the task force that have spent tireless hours working and meeting and discussing the issues through the process. finally, there have been numerous people on the planning department's staff, including a tremendous amount of support from the director on this planning process. and it has been pretty extraordinary. i hope not a one-off process in terms of involving the community in this level of participation in crafting plans for their neighborhoods and community. but it has been a long and winding road, an extraordinary process, and people have put untold numbers of hours into this process.

u desuemef t t eae is t ag sere abity u e t issu meang seoeshebi eire su an es althre a fal bause ehee mathate as beal rul bse constutial? ll, en thma fede albeul vernnt, ey h e cnscedeti? , th ed th rn, h cdehe who regatio withth thhoinsuegnceioth indtrydoest wo witut t m date th sutheyegreefor atndyesssue oo woit up ts m welte theey thieer isue,ueo ndup i'seryel portethi becsether is vee, litt cas l on iy rtt,ecer ve e ttas lon mediid crcion isue. an thatis theact. di t cio me t ikee. flida, oranat he ampl t.they a tling m t fridafla,f pl eyou a t ng don' parcipa ithis fda ograf we e ing n'arpa i tois p lrae youre gediid fndinto sohey e p urdi bical fin th ateng ussoy oercgs bal b thenus puing rmediidrcg funng. be dithe pug diuste,un. th don'diwante he sremeourt to hest tatth n'nt s mesue,rt aod we he do. we a t hopul t y wie,ake awe o.at is e p as a wel >> aop thewihingeyoupoin out ise liedasel anguhe mdatein utcausif y can malit plicle tt yocan mte us y enanrcea is m te tt ic eve tbodyyon ha ton buyeealt m insancethen t theve issdyoforta ofuyltnsangiceen ess rt mecaidoverhef staese

they said the requirement of an early preparation of eir is designed to provide a piece male review by which corporations emerge from chopping a large project into little ones. another case where a tentative map was issued. the determination of a negative declaration was ok. to make sure and eir was done with a product of such significance. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i am here to speak on behalf of the telegraph hill dwellers. i am the privilege of -- i have the privilege of being the current president. although i was just it'll -- although was educated on this project, and people had been talking about for over a decade. this particular side has been a setup and development three times previously in numerous incarnation. the bottom line is, nothing has changed. telegraph hill -- people think of the tower and the northeast side of the hill, but this is the far side of the hill. it is the seat and rocky side of the hill in an area that has not been developed but someday might be. if that is going to be done in accordance with the law and the sensitivity of