measures for our purposes, a ceqa review. that does not say that the project would not cause a significant effect. i would like to turn things over to it andrea, who will address the final two points. >> members of the board, i am with the planning department. our fourth point concerns cumulative impact. sequent guidelines state that it is not applicable when the cumulative impact of similar projects overtime is significant. the cumulative impacts of two or more individual affects together are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impact. the militants of impact from several projects is the change

in -- cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the in varmint. the department considered whether any cumulative impact will occur, and found none. they found the planning department data bases, there are no reasonably foreseeable projects within a two-block radius of the site that would result in physical changes that would be with the project. supervisory house burned'a statement that the project could impact is brought -- supervisor elsbernd's statement that the project could impact his property -- this is an entirely separate matter for a determined dean -- determining the cumulative impact under ceqa. such a project would be unlikely

to have geological impacts that could combine with the impact of the proposed project, given that the two properties are separated by more than a quarter mile. the bloc's debt could be developed in the future are not part of the cumulative impact by ceqa. the appellant has not provided any compelling residents that the existing residence was altered by the current owner or by the environmental exemption application. ceqa considers based on conditions to be the physical condition of the property at the time of environmental review. the building was altered no later than one year before the environmental exemption application. the department appropriately cannot analyze the removal as part of the project. >> just to wrap up here. with all due respect to mr. volumes and the speakers that we

heard today, the department does not find that the appellant has demonstrated that the category was approved in error. the soil report medications -- recommendations are not medications. the description is accurate. on the varmint to review including preparation including one of the speakers today would not change the facts of this case or provide any other affirmation for assessing impacts based on landslides or soil condition. it is the city's responsibility to determine whether there would be a significant impact. for reasons we stated in our presentation, we find that the -- this complies with ceqa and

we recommend that the board uphold be catex and deny the appeal. >> if we could now hear from the real party in interest. over here, by the way. >> good afternoon, president and board members. this is the fourth appeal of this project that the neighbors have been involved in. they have had a total of eight briefs and four in the last few weeks. the planning commission voted 7-0 in favor of the project. your board voted 10-0 in favor of the project. most recently, there has an appeal to the board of appeals which has not happened yet.

this is a look at the project of the three downhill lots. no matter what the engineering come the site would be a problem. mr. williams misrepresents the site. they were the generator of a mudslide almost 60 years ago. we have investigated this and found that the mud slide in 1942 was caused by the public streets and many lots away up on a hill nearby. they found that the source of it was up at the top of the hill, nowhere near the lots today. this document and the city's own documents show that our lots were at the bottom of the mud slide. they were covered by a mudslide. they did not generate it. there is a big difference

between being a generator and a recipient, of course. the city knows that since 1942, dozens of homes and streets with great foundations have been put in here which is much on mica 1942 conditions. those streets and sidewalks have established a great deal of infrastructure and stability to an area that was not stable in 1942. the engineering on our client's projects and the diversion of water will make the site much more stable than it is today. mr. williams claims that the fact that the other lots in the area, which are large, is not a big deal. the only points out four lots in an area out of hundreds of law experience -- of lots.

in the decision on whether they are cumulatively significant, the law takes into account projects that are significant, nearby, and not over the course of half a century or more. some of which are half a mile for a quarter mile away as supervisor elsbernd's lot is. whether there are any current applications on the lot shown, there are none. they have none foreseeable in the pipeline. mr. williams has brought you a neighbor to talk about that they thought it was my client to alter the rear of the buildings. the satellite photos of -- that

the neighbor showed, they have no date on them. the ones that do have a date are hard to read. they may appear to n showo rear, but they have no date on them. we have an affidavit under penalty of perjury from my client that says that he does not callthat rear to be removed. the day he took title is shown here. it really does not matter, it is legally irrelevant rather the rear of the house was taken down before or after my client took title. as was pointed out by planning ,ceqa takes a picture in time. it looks at existing conditions at the time you -- file for a project. the title was taken by my clients on february 26, 2007.

the request for environmental review came 16 months after our clients became owners. that is 11 months after the august, 2007 survey you are going to show here, which shows the back of the building had already been removed. it had already been removed 11 months before our clients took title. it does not matter. westie building there when the applications were made? cost -- was the building there when the applications were made? this project has no significant environmental impact.

they asked to get a retroactive permit. this is the permit by which are clients, after they took on tursha -- took ownership, they have the rear structural removal. i am going to cherie the certificate of completion that the department reviewed after the site. you will see in yellow, the statement, legalize removal of existing rear portion of the building on first floor done by previous owners. what is important that mr. bullion's has led you to believe that your decision today is the last chance to make the foundation -- mr. williams has led to you to believe that your decision today is your last chance to make the foundations of this structure.

mr. williams does not tell you that. the only a permit issued by buildings is a site permit. that building has a stamp on it that is very typical, of site per mets that says that it does not authorize construction. nothing can go on until it is reviewed. they can be delayed in carson middle. you could not prepare them at great expense and pay the fees and to you have a project. why do you not know that we have a project? it is because our site permit is activated. that is why the engineering drawings are not submitted. as usual, it is at the building department and not at the planning and not before you and your staff. your staff has the experts to review the structural drawings and engineering reports.

we do not expect problems from that. the site is one of the gentler sloping sides in the city. not a lot. if you heard from mr. williams, you would think that this is a 45% sloat. he asks that your planning department stop and do more review them they have done so far. provide the expertise to give that structured engineer -- engineering drawings. if you could have the planning department do that sort of thing, when it comes to you in june, you should double their personnel. you have a department that does that, the building department. bank that -- they make mistakes, then it goes to the board of appeals, which has one of the best architects on into.

-- on it. >> in my last minute, i would like to point out that there is an additional report that came in today from my client's soil engineer. i will leave that behind me so that you can put that in the record. the last thing i want to say is this. with all due respect to your board, the board of the -- board of appeals is the place to discuss this. the building department has the expertise to review those drawings. those drawings will be forthcoming as soon as we are about to go forward, should the court of appeals approved our site permit. before you today, that is only a decision on whether the structures themselves will cause a significant negative

environmental a fact. there are three structures. they are only 21 feet in height from the street. no bigger than the next court buildings. similar heights and similar steps have been there for decades and decades. we do not know of any problems. this is a suburban area. it is not telegraph hill. neighbors think that it is too congested. that is what this is about. thank you very much. >> thank you. at this time, why do we not hear from individuals interested on the real party in interest? >> supervisor chiu, and the other supervisors, i am a

consultant. firstly, i am a licensed civil engineer in california. i have been practicing for over 45 years. most of my practice is in san francisco. i want you to know that it is not unusual to have our work reviewed by peer reviews. it is highly unusual that our work order is being reviewed by a structural engineer who has a different discipline from the work that we do. it is very rare that we find any

thing that it is not sent out by the same individual of structural engineering. for a professional under peer review you would find out what is happening in the vicinity of the site. our april 7, 2009 report is supplementary to the mechanics report. it is supplementary to what we have done at the site in 2003. thank you. >> are there other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the real party in

interest? seeing none, at this time, why do we not hear from the appellant for a rebuttal? >> thank you, president chiu and members of the board. i am not sure what mr. gladstone was reading. i made no claims about the site generating landslides. i made no concerns about the foundations of the building. i made no claims about errors in drainage. we are here about the empowerment to review given to this project. we are not here to decide whether or not these structures will cause an environmental impact. we are here to let you know that the review given by the department to determine what level of review the

environmental impact that this project may cause was not properly assessed from the department. it is in a sensitive environmental area. the project is clearly mitigated. the network case is directly on point. they are using the exact same terminology that was rejected by the court bench. they are using another technique that was rejected by the court. these medications will come down the line. let's send it over to the building department and they will resolve it. i am going to let the engineer take the remainder of my time so that he can walk you through his report. >> i only have limited time. the california code of regulations requires the lead agency to have in tampa --

independent study which is spelled out very clearly in the report. that is the peer review that he was refering to. there was no peer review done. it is required in the special study. there is a standard of care, and i am reviewing this not as a geotechnical engineer, but for completeness and to determine whether the standard of care was applied. i will not render an opinion from a geotechnical standpoint. or so from a procedural standpoint. the important thing is that the independent review was not done. the independent review will determine whether the site with further analysis and mitigation measures needs to be done. attack study may require massive

gradin. i am not saying that it does. there may be environmental impacts. that is why ceqa is somewhat tied to that. >> colleagues, any final questions to you or any of the colleagues involved here? at this time, this hearing has been held and closed. colleagues, items 15, 16, and 17 are in the hands of the board. supervisor chu: thank-you to the appellants and the members of the public who took the time to come out on both sides of this. after taking a look at the materials that we had before us in addition to listening to the presentations that we made today, i do not feel that the appellant has submitted any evidence that it would have impacts under ceqa.

i wanted to talk about three topics areas, one is the issue of removal of the rear room. one of the things that has been pretty clear to me that under ceqa, with the project analysis to be completed by the department, it requires the dbase line of the project analysis be done in the context of when it exists and when the project is submitted. the project clearly has rear removed previous to this application. in regard to the cumulative impact that has been talked about in such memos and information that have come to us, the presentation of lots that could be subdivided does not constitute evidence that there is potential cumulative impacts. i believe from the city's.

every view they believe that there had been no records for entitlements of projects associated with the area. we do not have any evidence that really points to that. with regards to site, much has been set about the site, the fact that it's it's on a seismic hazard zone. that does not mean that we can issue a categorical exemption. it is suitable for development in terms of what we are looking at at this moment. there is no archaeological impact that the court has found. there is no impact on the environmental resources at this site. the department of building inspection does have the

regulatory programs as to how to deal with sites. we can understand that the department of building inspection will make sure that the buildings put into place are safe. these are not considered meditations -- litigation's -- mitigations under ceqa. i would make a move to table 15 and 17. >> approving the items 15 and tabling 16 and 17, seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor wiener: 5 want to thank all of the parties on both sides for coming -- i want to thank all of the parties on both sides for coming out today.

i appreciated both then and today that they focused on the ceqa issues or their view on the ceqa issues. oftentimes people, wi hereth the cequa appeals and they have nothing to do with ceqa. although i disagree with the appellants, i do appreciate the effort to limit the review to ceqa. i will be voting for the motion. thank you. >> any additional discussion? supervisor campos: -- supervisor cohen:aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye.

supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> there are nine ayes. >> the categorical exemption has been a fern. >> today's meeting will be adjourned on behalf of the following individuals. for the late mrs. lawrence brown. on behalf of supervisor elsbernd, the late mr. nicholas. on behalf of the full board, for the late mr. cameron beach. on behalf of supervisor mirkarimi, for the late brian connolly. >> madame clerk, is there any more business in front of this body? colleagues, we are adjourn for today.