Board affirms Planning Department’s categorical-exemption for 214–220 Second Street after public hearing; related motions tabled

After a contested public hearing on April 15, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to affirm the Planning Department’s determination that the proposed demolition of an existing single‑family house at 214–220 Second Street and construction of a six‑story, five‑unit building qualifies for class 1 and class 3 categorical exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The board approved item 35 and tabled items 36 and 37, which would have reversed the exemption or directed written findings.

Why it matters: The decision keeps the project on a path that would allow it to proceed to building‑permit review without a separate environmental review document, while preserving future administrative and permitting safeguards through the city's building‑permit and geotechnical review processes.

Substantive points from the hearing: Appellant and experts: Emily Brough, representing appellants (02/1932 and 02/3620 Second Street HOA), said the site presents “unusual circumstances” under CEQA because of a steep slope (appellant cited up to a 40% grade in areas), designation on the state earthquake landslide zone maps, and underlying serpentine bedrock that can contain naturally occurring asbestos. Geotechnical engineer Allan Cropp testified he found the record lacking deep borings and certified geology reports for a planned excavation of up to 30 feet and said that serpentinite can present stability, shear‑zone, and asbestos risks that warrant deeper subsurface study before construction.

Planning Department response: Lisa Gibson, the department’s environmental review officer, and staff maintained the Planning Department’s determination that the project fits class 1 (demolition) and class 3 (six or fewer dwelling units) categorical exemptions and that the factors cited by the appellant are not “unusual circumstances” in San Francisco. Planning presented department estimates showing substantial portions of the city have slopes exceeding 25% and that serpentine bedrock is common in Potrero Hill and surrounding areas. Staff also noted that compliance with the state's and city’s building codes (including DBI and slope/seismic hazard requirements) would govern geotechnical review, asbestos/fugitive dust controls and worker/public protections during excavation and construction.

Project sponsor statement: Tuya Catalano, counsel for the project sponsor, said the sponsor had tried to engage the appellants to resolve concerns, noted a recorded notice regarding property‑line windows that has existed for 30 years, and emphasized that required geotechnical and geology reports are submitted during the building‑permit review (DBI) stage. Catalano argued that the appeal should not substitute for the building permit process and that mitigation and engineering controls are administered by DBI and public‑safety regulations.

Board action and procedure: The board opened the public hearing, heard the appellant and a geotechnical expert, received the Planning Department’s presentation, heard the project sponsor, and then heard final rebuttal from the appellant. Supervisor Walton moved the motion to affirm item 35 (the Planning Department’s categorical exemption); Supervisor Chan seconded. The clerk recorded the motion to approve item 35 and to table items 36 and 37; the vote on item 35 was recorded as 11 ayes.

What the board did not decide: Tabling items 36 and 37 leaves open the option for further written findings or reconsideration at a later date, but item 35’s affirmation allows the project sponsor to proceed to the normal building‑permit, geotechnical and dust control reviews required by DBI and other permitting authorities.

Ending: The board’s action affirms Planning’s categorical exemption finding for CEQA purposes at this stage, while DBI and other regulatory processes remain the venues for detailed geotechnical and excavation controls required before construction.