before approving a project subject to ceqa, the city must consider a final eir or neg dec. the california supreme court has emphasized that ceqa requires environmental review to refer to products first rather than final approval. by lending its political and financial assistance to this project, the city, as a practical matter, has committed itself to the project. in august of 2009, the mayor's office of housing issued a notice of funding availability for $2 million for a housing project. c after. hp as the project sponsor, the recommended an additional $2.4 million to chp outside of the funding selection process. in july of 2010, chp executed a deed of trust and security agreement with the mayor's office of housing. on july 20, 2010, the city issued a notice -- rather, a certificate of exemption with regard to ceqa. finding that the projects categorically exempt from further ceqa analysis. on that same day, the mayor's office approved the loan. within a few days, it became clear that the planning department was -- had decided to not go forward with the notice of exemption

following the project sponsor, members of the public debt which to support the issuance of the neg dec and the conditional use of -- conditional use authorization may speak for up to 10 minutes on both issues. we ask the speakers to identify a particular appeal if they wish. finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for rebuttal in support of the neg dec appeal and the conditional use authorization. at the end of the hearing, we are considered by law to consider the question of the issuance of the-declaration and therefore, we will first vote on whether to affirm the neg dec. in the event it is confirmed, we will then confirm or overturned the conditional use authorization. given that this relates to the conditional use authorization is quasi--judicial in nature, we need to provide parties with due process for this entire proceeding. members may not be biased or predispose toward a particular option on this project. all of us will be considering the same effects, records, and testimony. colleagues, any objections to proceeding in this way? let me ask the supervisor farrell

following the project sponsor, members of the public debt which to support the issuance of the neg dec and the conditional use of -- conditional use authorization may speak for up to 10 minutes on both issues. we ask the speakers to identify a particular appeal if they wish. finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for rebuttal in support of the neg dec appeal and the conditional use authorization. at the end of the hearing, we are considered by law to consider the question of the issuance of the-declaration and therefore, we will first vote on whether to affirm the neg dec. in the event it is confirmed, we will then confirm or overturned the conditional

responses responding to a total of two letters that were set by the appellate as a result to the final neg dec appeal. if any of you need our latest memo, we have extra copies. we also of copies for members of the public. after careful consideration of the concerns raised in the testimony today, the planning department continues to find that th ffmmd was appropriately issued. 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