Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sends Telegraph Hill parcel split back to planners after geotechnical, CEQA concerns
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing, supervisors reversed a planning determination that a proposed two-lot subdivision at 1171 Sansom Street was exempt from environmental review and returned the matter to the Planning Department for further study. The decision followed expert testimony raising slope-stability risks.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors reversed a Planning Department determination that a proposed two-lot subdivision at 1171 Sansom Street (the "Edward the Second" related parcel matters) was exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, and returned the matter to department staff for further analysis.
The hearing combined two appeals: (1) a challenge to the Planning Department's use of the CEQA "general rule exclusion" (often called the GRE) for the subdivision, and (2) an appeal of the Department of Public Works' approval of a tentative parcel map. Appellants argued that the parcel's steep slope, prior landslide history nearby, and the practical effect of splitting ownership would permit development that could have significant impacts unless the full environmental review was done first.
Attorney Susan Brandt Holly represented appellants and asked the board to consider the subdivision together with reasonably foreseeable development on the parcels, citing state precedent that agencies may not "piecemeal" review a project and must consider environmental consequences early in the planning process. Geotechnical expert Larry Karp described the site as an upper block of relatively strong sandstone underlain by raveling shale and explained that excavation or development on the lower portion of the slope without coordinated work above could destabilize the hillside.
Planning Department staff maintained the GRE applied because the application before the department was only for a subdivision and no development plans were on file. Don Lewis, planning staff, told the board that environmental review would be required for any future development proposals and that DBI would withhold permits until geotechnical issues were addressed.
Following public testimony on both sides, Supervisor David Chiu moved to reverse the department's exemption determination and return the project to planning. The motion passed on roll call (11 ayes), and the board ordered the Planning Department to pursue additional environmental review rather than let the subdivision proceed under the GRE.
Why the board acted: The board took the rare step after hearing expert geotechnical testimony, a record of earlier proposed developments, and appellants' legal briefing arguing that the subdivision was a first step that would make subsequent, connected development "reasonably foreseeable." Supervisors expressed concern that subdividing the property could make coordinated slope stabilization harder or impossible and that granting a GRE would foreclose a full environmental review that would allow mitigation to be designed and required up front.
What happens next: The Planning Department will reopen environmental review and consider either a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR) that looks at potential development and slope stabilization issues in combination before any subdivision or construction approvals move forward.
