Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms categorical exemption for Mira Loma Park subdivision at 795 Forrester Street
Summary
After a nearly hour-long hearing, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to uphold the Planning Department's categorical exemption for a proposed subdivision at 795 Forrester Street, rejecting an appeal that argued the project lies in a seismic hazard zone and exceeded exemption limits.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday affirmed the Planning Department's determination that a proposed subdivision and three-house development at 795 Forrester Street (and associated lots on Las Palmas Drive) is categorically exempt from further environmental review under state CEQA guidelines, voting to uphold the exemption and to table related motions for additional findings.
The appeal argued the site lies within a mapped seismic hazard area, cited the city's historic 1942 landslide on Mira Loma Park, and contended the project exceeded the limits of a Class 3 categorical exemption because four development lots were created rather than three. The board voted 9–0 to affirm the categorical exemption (item 15) and tabled the motions to reverse the Planning Department's determination and to direct preparation of findings (items 16 and 17).
Appellants, represented by a Mr. Williams on behalf of the Mira Loma Park Improvement Club and nearby neighbors, told the board the project required independent geotechnical peer review under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and that proposed engineering measures should not be treated as mere design features rather than CEQA mitigation. “This proposed project was granted a categorical exemption, in error,” Williams said during the appeal. He and neighbors pointed to archived aerial imagery and deed records they said showed a rear addition to the existing house had been removed after purchase, arguing that change affected whether the exemption applied.
Planning Department staff disputed those claims. Lisa Gibson of the Planning Department told the board the department had reviewed submitted soils reports and found that the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) review process and standard regulatory requirements (for example, reinforced concrete piers and site drainage) address soil and slope safety concerns. “DBI's review process ensures there would not be any significant effect associated with soils hazards,” Gibson said, and the department recommended upholding the categorical exemption and denying the appeal.
Neighbors and technical witnesses described site conditions they said made the area sensitive. Civil and structural engineer Kamal Obeid summarized his review for the neighbors, noting the site is inside a mapped seismic hazard study zone and describing the professional standards he believed had not been fully met in the project’s geotechnical documentation. Appellant materials cited a court precedent (Salmon Protection and Watershed Network) that the board heard was used to argue that reliance on later-adopted engineering "mitigations" cannot substitute for initial environmental review.
The project sponsor and their consultants said the lots in question are at the lower end of the historic slide area and that infrastructure and later construction in the neighborhood have materially changed conditions since 1942. Brett Gladstone, representing the real party in interest, told the board that structural plans and soils analyses will be reviewed in detail by DBI before any building permit work can proceed; he emphasized that a site permit does not authorize construction until structural drawings, soils reports and DBI review are complete.
Supervisor David Chiu moved to affirm the categorical exemption and to table the motions to reverse and to prepare findings; the motion was seconded and carried in roll call (aye votes recorded for Supervisors Cohen, Farrell, Kim, Mar, Marcarimi, Wiener, Campos and President Chu). The board's action leaves the Planning Department's CEQA finding in place; the building permit and DBI review process remain the regulatory path for structural and geotechnical approvals.
Neighbors said they would pursue further administrative appeals and noted the broader concern of cumulative infill development in Mira Loma Park. Planning staff and the project sponsor said any technical issues raised by DBI reviews or the Board of Permit Appeals would be addressed through the existing permitting process.
The board closed the hearing after the vote and moved on to remaining agenda items.
