you cannot do ceqa until you have enough shape around the project to do a ceqa analysis. is that correct? in terms of the density, the traffic impact, and being able to study those kinds of things. right? >> correct. supervisor wiener: if you decide you want to support transition aged youth housing and this is a great provider and we want to start supporting the project and encouraging development, but it is one to take us some time to actually figure out if it will be 30 units, 70 units, 20 units, 100, is there one to be parking or no parking, and all the other things that go into the final project. your argument that the city cannot take any of those steps ahead of time to work with the provider to come up with a project without first undergoing ceqa on a project that does not exist because you cannot do ceqa on it, that is what i'm hearing and i am a little bit confused. >> the issue is that the mayor's office of housing loan $4.4 million. \ supervisor wiener: that is often the case. if you loan money to explore what the possibilities are. there are a lot of transactio

loans before the ceqa analysis. i would like to address the issues raised by the appellant. the offense of the density increase. the proposed density increase from 16 to 24 units was analyzed. while the project would result in an increase in group housing density, the department's found its assets would be less than significant under ceqa. with regard to land use, the project would not specifically divide an established community, conflict with land use policies adopted for the purposes of environmental litigation, it would not conflict with a conservation plan, and it would also not sit -- substantially impact the existing character of the project the city. thus, the project would not have a significant land use impact. in addition, the project would not result in significant impacts to population and housing. it would result in a total of 25 residents and employees for .01% increase in the residential population in the marina neighborhood. while this may be noticeable to immediate neighborhoods, the increase would

ceqa does not let us do that. whether it is a subdivision map or a 100 unit condo project, ceqa applies. because it has been around for decades, there is a lot of case law to interpret this. i know it can get dense, but the bottom line is, there are a series of cases, one in particular called the city of antioch. in this case, a sewer line was that issue. not a big building or construction deal. the proponents of the sewer line made the exact same arguments being made here. they said listen, a negative declaration is for the fine. there is no project at issue here. what is the big deal? the court of appeals overruled that. 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 evenin

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

when it is, it will be reviewed under ceqa. supervisor campos: my sense is that they have tried to get this kind of approval in the past. not once, but a couple of times. what is different between every time that this has been attempted in the past and the planning a department has said no. what is different about today than was previously cited and when the planning department said no. i assume that the slope and the physical characteristics in of the location have not changed that much. i am trying to understand what the difference is. >> there was a development proposal in 1984. 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

loans before the ceqa analysis. i would like to address the issues raised by the appellant. the offense of the density increase. the proposed density increase from 16 to 24 units was analyzed. while the project would result in an increase in group housing density, the department's found its assets would be less than significant under ceqa. with regard to land use, the project would not specifically divide an established community, conflict with land use policies adopted for the purposes of environmental litigation, it would not conflict with a conservation plan, and it would also not sit

other reasonable developments should be considered in a ceqa analysis. contrary to the appellants assertions, the project is not part of a larger project and is not peacemealing. this refers to the breaking down of a development into multiple developments in order to avoid review. the project at 3155 scott street is an entirely separate and independent of the 2009 housing element and and and other projects proposed. p the project is. iecemealing of a greater project. the fmnd analysis of resources and hazardous materials -- all of these were analyzed in the fmnd. the appellate has provided no substantial evidence to support their claims to the contrary. finally, before i conclude, i would like to a knowledge the public testimony to that. it is clear from the speakers that there is a great deal of concern regarding the project. i would like to thank the speakers for their testimony and everyone for coming out to speak to something that is very important to them. i would especially know that no new information has been raised that changes our conclusions t

but me first address ceqa. i appreciate the planning department answering the questions i had earlier. i am going to make a motion to approve or item 36 and table 37 and 38. >> this is seconded by supervisor elsbernd. we need a roll-call vote because the house has changed. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> mar absent. >> mirkarimi absent. >> aye. >> there are nine ayes. >> colleagues, at this time i would like to make a motion that we affirm the planning commission's decision on the conditional use authorization. the determined to -- determination to authorize the project was appropriate. i think there has been very sufficient analyses with all of the issues regarding to services, etc. i would like to make a motion that we affirm the planning commission's decision, which is approving item 40 and tabling 41 and 42. >> thank you. thank you to everyone for coming out and participating in this hearing. it is always fun to have and a problem to have friends on both sides of the aisle. for the past two weeks, we hav