Board affirms categorical exemption for 214–220 Second Street; neighbors' CEQA appeal denied

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday affirmed the Planning Department's determination that a proposed project at 214'220 Second Street is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), rejecting an appeal from neighbors who said unusual geological circumstances require a full environmental study.

The board voted 11'to'0 to approve Item 35, which affirms the Planning Department's class 1 and class 3 categorical exemption for the project. Supervisors also tabled the companion motions (Items 36 and 37) that would have reversed the exemption and directed written findings.

The appellants'attorney, Emily Brough, told the board the issue was not whether housing should be built but whether CEQA review is required. "The issue before the board today is not whether this project should be built," Brough said. She said the site has a roughly 40 percent slope in places, sits inside a state-mapped earthquake landslide zone, and is underlain by serpentine bedrock that can contain naturally occurring asbestos. Brough and the appellants'geotechnical expert, Alan Cropp, said the project proposes excavations up to about 30 feet while borings in the sponsor's initial report reach only 2 to 5 feet.

"Serpentinite is one of the least stable bedrock types in the city," said Cropp, who told the board he has more than 50 years of geotechnical experience in the Bay Area. "When a 30'foot excavation is to be made, it's critical that the depth of that material be characterized by a geologist for stability." Cropp also testified that serpentinite can in some cases release asbestos fibers when excavated.

Planning Department staff responded that the project fits within two CEQA categorical exemptions: class 1 (demolition of a single'family residence) and class 3 (construction of up to six dwelling units). Don Lewis, a planning staff member, said the department's records show steep slopes and serpentine bedrock are common features in San Francisco and that the city's building and safety codes, including the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone protections, provide review mechanisms at the building permit stage.

"Construction on steep slopes is common in San Francisco," Lewis said, noting the department's estimate that about 13 percent of the city includes slopes of 25 percent or greater. He added that the project sponsor must still obtain building permits and compliance with the California Building Code and local rules, which trigger geotechnical review.

The project sponsor's attorney, Tuya Catalano, said the sponsor has conducted neighborhood outreach, offered to share as'built drawings with the neighbors, and will submit geotechnical and geology reports with the building permit as required. "The city's building permit procedures today are more, not less, than they were 30 years ago," Catalano told the board, adding that the recorded notice on the neighbor's title has long warned that property'line windows may be closed or protected if adjacent development occurs.

Supervisor Shamann Walton, who moved to affirm the exemption and table the motions that would reverse it, said he found the Planning Department's record sufficient to meet the legal standard that no unusual circumstances requiring environmental review were shown. Supervisor Chan seconded Walton's motion. The clerk called the roll: Chan, Chen, Dorsey, Engadio, Fielder, Mahmood, Mandelmann, Melgar, Sautter, Cheryl and Walton voted "aye." The board recorded no "no" votes on Item 35.

The public hearing included no speakers registered in support of the appeal, and no members of the public spoke in opposition to the project at the hearing. The board's action affirms the Planning Department's categorical exemption; because Items 36 and 37 were tabled the board did not adopt written findings reversing the exemption at this meeting.

Why it matters: The appellants argued there is at least a "reasonable possibility" of a significant environmental effect because the site combines steep slope, earthquake landslide designation, and serpentinite bedrock, a combination they said was "unusual" within the meaning of CEQA. Planning staff and the sponsor said applicable building permit reviews and dust-control rules (including the city's construction dust control ordinance for naturally occurring asbestos) are the appropriate mechanisms to address geotechnical safety and dust mitigation.

What happens next: With the board's action, the sponsor may proceed toward a planning entitlement and, later, submit building permit applications that will require geotechnical and geological studies. The building permit reviews — including required geologic and geotechnical reports and potential peer review — will be the point at which many of the appellants' site-specific concerns are further evaluated and conditions imposed if needed.

Speakers (at hearing)

- Emily Brough, attorney for appellants (appeal of CEQA categorical exemption) - Alan Cropp, geotechnical engineer (appeal witness) - Don Lewis, Planning Department staff - Tuya Catalano, attorney for project sponsor (Rubin, Junius & Rose) - Supervisor Shamann Walton, mover of the motion to affirm the exemption - Board President Rafael Mandelmann, presiding

Authorities

- {"type":"statute","name":"California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)","referenced_by":["214-220-second-street-ceqa-appeal-2025-04-15"]} - {"type":"code","name":"San Francisco Building Code (Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone protections / Slope Protection Act)","referenced_by":["214-220-second-street-ceqa-appeal-2025-04-15"]}

Actions

- {"kind":"motion","identifiers":{"agenda_item_id":"35"},"motion":"Motion to affirm the Planning Department's categorical exemption determination for the project at 214-220 Second Street (Item 35) and to table Items 36 and 37","mover":"Supervisor Shamann Walton","second":"Supervisor Chan","vote_record":[{"member":"Chan","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Chen","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Dorsey","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Engadio","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Fielder","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Mahmood","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Mandelmann","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Melgar","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Sautter","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Cheryl","vote":"yes"},{"member":"Walton","vote":"yes"}],"tally":{"yes":11,"no":0},"outcome":"approved","notes":"Items 36 and 37 tabled; motion to affirm passed unanimously."}

- {"kind":"other","identifiers":{"agenda_item_id":"36"},"motion":"Motion to conditionally reverse the Planning Department's categorical exemption determination for 214-220 Second Street (Item 36)","mover":"not specified","second":"not specified","vote_record":[],"tally":{},"outcome":"tabled","notes":"Motion to reverse exemption was tabled by the board."}

- {"kind":"other","identifiers":{"agenda_item_id":"37"},"motion":"Motion directing preparation of findings related to reversal of the categorical exemption (Item 37)","mover":"not specified","second":"not specified","vote_record":[],"tally":{},"outcome":"tabled","notes":"Motion tabled."}

Discussion_decision: {"discussion_points":["Appellant argued unusual combination of 40% slope, earthquake landslide zone, and serpentine bedrock could cause significant environmental impacts","Planning Department maintained steep slopes and serpentine bedrock are common and that building permit reviews (geotechnical and geological reports) and dust-control rules mitigate risks","Project sponsor offered to share as-built drawings and noted building-permit stage reviews will include geotechnical analysis and peer review if needed"],"directions":["Items 36 and 37 tabled; no reversal adopted at this session"],"decisions":["Board affirmed Planning Department's categorical exemption (Item 35) by roll-call vote 11-0"]}

Clarifying_details

- {"category":"project_scope","detail":"Proposed demolition of existing single-family dwelling and construction of a 6-story building with 5 dwelling units, 5 off-street parking spaces (stackers) and 5 bicycle parking spaces","value":"noted"} - {"category":"excavation_depth","detail":"Project sponsor indicated excavations up to approximately 30 feet; borings in initial report reached 2-5 feet","value":"approximate"} - {"category":"site_hazard","detail":"Site lies within a state-designated earthquake landslide zone; underlying bedrock mapped as serpentinite (potential for naturally occurring asbestos)","value":"noted","source_speaker":"Emily Brough / Alan Cropp"}

Proper_names

[{"name":"Ramaytush Ohlone","type":"other"},{"name":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors","type":"agency"},{"name":"California Environmental Quality Act","type":"statute"},{"name":"Rubin, Junius & Rose","type":"business"}]

Community_relevance

{"geographies":["Potrero Hill","Second Street corridor","San Francisco"],"impact_groups":["adjacent property owners","construction workers","future building residents"],"funding_sources":[]}

Meeting_context

{"engagement_level":{"speakers_count":6,"duration_minutes":105,"items_count":4},"implementation_risk":"medium","history":[{"date":"2025-04-15","note":"CEQA appeal hearing and vote to affirm categorical exemption"}]}

Searchable_tags

["CEQA","214-220 Second Street","Potrero Hill","categorical exemption","land use","geotechnical"]

Provenance

{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"3754.22","local_start":0,"local_end":485,"evidence_excerpt":"Items 34 through 37 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act issued as a categorical exemption by the planning department on 12/18/2024 for the proposed project at 214220 Second Street, which proposes to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new 6 story building with 5 new units, 5 off street parking spaces housed within stackers, and 5 bicycle parking spaces.","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"5704.755","local_start":0,"local_end":210,"evidence_excerpt":"Without objection, item 35 is approved. Items 36 and 37 are tabled.","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]}

salience:{"overall":0.72,"overall_justification":"The hearing involved a contested CEQA exemption with technical geologic concerns and a roll-call vote by the Board; it affects a specific property and the local permitting process."}