ms. brandt holley setting a precedent. there are times when you need to set a precedent. if there is a c-e-q-a issue and you need to set a precedent, that is appropriate. i believe overturning this cat ex here would be setting a precedent that would be outside of c-e-q-a and would, in effect, turn this body into some sort of review body of the planning commission's discretionary review determinations around views, around shadows, around a number of the things that we discussed. ~ today. so, with that, i do move that we affirm the categorical exemption, specifically the motion is to move item 14 and to table items 15 and 16, and that is the motion. >> thank you, supervisor wiener has made a motion from the categorical exemption. that is seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any additional questions? before we vote, i just want to note, supervisor mar unfortunately was not feeling well and had to go home so i'd like to entertain a motion that we excuse him for the rest of the afternoon. motion by supervisor farrell seconded by supervisor campos, without objection, he w

ms. brandt holley and with the planning department. >>> i will, thank you. >> thank you. >>> the vista issue falls into what [speaker not understood] have primarily asserted the exception to the categorical exemption comes into play. and that exception requires that two things be shown. first, that there are here unusual circumstances different from the circumstances where most cat ex's apply, and secondly that substantial evidence is in the record, that there's a reasonable possibility of environmental impact flowing from those unusual circumstances. unusual circumstances tend to be things like locating a landfill on top of a very delicate groundwater basin. appellants have not established unusual circumstances here. on the dreher contrary, the situation here is quite typical to other additions to single-family homes within the san francisco san francisco. ~ in fact once the third story is built 9 home will remain shorter than the profile of the surrounding home. as to the second prong of the test, the impact, appellants have not demonstrated that there are significant physical environmenta

ms. brandt hoy. >>> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board, supervisor wiener. i'm susan van holleyepresenting 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