ll single family house and small project so the test on whether the cad ecs-is there a exception to thethex empson to a cad ex? yes t is called unusual circumstances exemption and the cral supreme court issued out a decision march called berkeley hill side and it is a 2 prong test. the question is one, are there stlsh unusual circumstances in this case? yes, there are. the projsect located on greater than 20 degree slope. it is on a land slide zone and don't know why the building department is saying it isn't a land slide zone because i spoke to tom lay and [inaudible] 3 of the neighbors are on that seismic land slide zone. that is tom rea from the building department. there is also the question-what is unusual about this case that you dont see on telegraph hill is you have a house this close at

the base within inches to another house on top that is at the edge of a near vertical unstable slope. that is extremely unusual. you see lot of housing with set backs in hill sides, a lot of set backs, but never a house on the top with now set back and the a huz at the base of no set back. that is high challenge and think that is definitely a unusual circumstance. after the notice of violations are real hazards. it isn't speculation or something that might happen. it happened in 2012 and in 2014, i have 8 feet of rocks stack udup, the rocks still continue to fall. it is-there was another lan slide 4 blocks away so this is quite serious. the second test is there reasonable possibility that unusual circumstances will produce a significant effect on the

environment. yes, definitely. all 4 neighbors on the cliff share the cliff and it is unstable so that is just common sense. that is oorth think that is unusual about the case, all 4 neighbors are on a unstable cliff. even small projicts are not exempt from review with unusual circumstances. the legislature provided exsemgzs for this case. if this were not the case small projects could be built on [inaudible] without environmental review and that isn't in the public interest. where want to address what the planning demarmt is isag. they say the building department will help you-i have e-mails and just cave john cairbl e-mail jz the building department high level people told me they themselves do not sl plan checkers and don't have the

talent to fix a high challenge slope stabilization scheme like this so that is why i think [inaudible] who is stabilizing the lum bard street slope now today he also did the broad way street one, is a good person to work with 26 hawjs on this project. the planning department goes into your protected lie buy the slope act. i look thatd slope act, the slope act doesn't apply to small project. we are going to go under the radar, for sequa and the slope act and that isn't in the public interest or neighbors interest. i'm working to help all 4 neighbors. if my neighborerize stable, i will be stable so this is a 4 neighbor cliff stabilization and by making this transparent and under scrutiny we can get a better wall in this high challenge

space. the project sponsor i don't lelt them we move rocks, we have an agreement to remove rock jz have a stack of e-mails back home going 2 years whether i delayed sth project. i never delayed the project. i have 30 pages of e-mails at home. if you want them i can give you those e-mails. they say it is my sequa appeal that delays them. no it isn't the sequa epeal. i'll remove the sequa appeal if they work with my engineers. there is third thing-they say 2 neighbors [inaudible] i asked those 2 neighbors to talk 226 hawjs about stabilizing the cliff because i want this to work. i started the stabilization 4 year uzagoso have no problems with the neighbors supporting 26 hawjs because i know theyment a stabilized cliff. thank you so much >> thank you. at this time i will open it up to public comment for those who want

to speak in support of the appeal. if there is anyone who wants to speak in support of the appeal please come forward. you have up to 2 minutes. >> hell hoe my name is larry ed-mind juicy and stay in district 6 and know what neighbors [inaudible] talking about neighbors house being stable. you know in san francisco neighbors must look out for neighbors even though they are taught not to and taking penal speculation. just think honchy mimic birthday is friday. [inaudible] speculation of housing, if everyone [inaudible] you can be rich and someone will want to move you out. [inaudible] today is about neighbors really want to stay in this city no

matter what income you are. there is always something to get over it. i was thijing san francisco [inaudible] national cheer leaders and also [inaudible] it should be nuths ing going on but the rent because these housing-people build and come in and build and pushing people out and sometimes -what are you going to do? what do our people-one thing in 68 there was a housing [inaudible] pazed ouf 65 civil rights to vote and 66 was head start. we really need toknow that ordinary people and leaders are standing up for housing across this nation. hab tit for humanity because regan brought crack cocaine and [inaudible] he is succeeding

with aid in the black community so that was the end of president carter hab tit for humanity. we need to build a city [inaudible] thank you >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in support of the appeal. seeing none public comment is closed. now i will recognize the planning department, you will have up to 10 minutes >> good afternoon board president breed and fellow members of the board. my name is chris [inaudible] i'm a environmental planner with the planning department. joining me today is sara jones [inaudible] we sent you 2 memoes wesponding to 2 appeal letters filed by the appellate after careful consideration of the appellates concerns the planning department

continues find the project is exemp from sequa. the decision before you today is whether to uphold the departments decision to issue a categorical exemption and deny the appeal or return the project to the department for additional environmental review. the project site is located on the east side of hawjs alley at volayo street between [inaudible] the site contains a 2 story 2300 scare foot single family residence. the project involved the interior remodel of the existence re residence and vertical addition for new 460 [inaudible] the projecktd aults includes expansion of a roof deck by adding 130 square feet of roof deck space access from the third

flor bedroom. the department considered whether the project would have significant effect on the environment due taunusual circumstances such as historic resource impacts and geotechnical concerns and none were found thmpt department issued a categorical exemption and on february 12, 2015, the project underwent a discretionary review hearing before the planning commission and during the hearing the project was modified so the third flor addition was set back farther from the funt fooincrease thumount of light cast on hawjs alley. also the reroof deck was reduced to align with the adjacent building depth and improve the rear. the planning commission approved the project by a vote of 7 to 0. the

planning departments responses issues are sumred inl 2 main points thmpt first issue raised by the concerns administrative procedures. states the planning department shouldn't have accepted [inaudible] in u until the noits of violation were cleared. this includes a evaluation issued in 2012 including haserdize rocks and mud sliding off the rock slode as well as [inaudible] sitting 1 cubic yard detached and resting knaens the wall at 358-360 volayo street. the planning department isn't responsible for abating vilailgzs issued by the department of building inspection or dbi. these issues would be resolved through the building permit review process. in order to

correct the notice of evaluation on the property the project sponsor included the abatement of the violation into the building permit which also includes the proposed addition to the existing residence. this permit was reviewed by the department with the issuance of a categorical exempttion and discretionary review. bl wl the project sponsor submits 2 separate permits isn't a issue under sequa. the department is charged with analyzing projects. the appellates concern regarding the evaluations don't deal with physical change tooz the property as those condition already exist. none the less thrbs correction of notice of evaluation on the property isn't a sequa issue. the appellate doesn't state how this results in a adverse physical change to the environment and therefore no further response is required thmpt exemption with the

permit remains valid even with the abatement violations. the second issue concerns the appropriateness of a categorical exemption. the appellate states the categorical exemption issued by the department isn't appropriate since there were unusual circumstances onch the project site. more specifically the appellate claims that there are unusual circumstances due to the praujtect located on a site with a slope greater than 20 percent and located with a land slide zone. further, the appellate states that because the projuct sites sits on the edge of a near vertical unstable slope with a down slope neighbors house 20 feet below and irch tooz the slope these conditionerize not extraordinary, exsemgzal or unusual circumstance. the planning department doesn't consider the property located on the slope greater than 20 percent as a unusual circumstance. the

topography of san francisco is hilly and structures located on slopes greater than 20 percent is common throughout the city. new construction and additions to existing building situated on hillerize common acurns in the city. the projeblth site is located on telegrach hill more than 40 hills that define the cities landscape and not considered a exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. ogeotechnical report was prepared for the project thmpt purpose of the report is to identify any geotechnical issues and recommend construction practices and technique tooz protect structures and neighboring properties. these recommendations are then taken into accounts during b-d rks bi permit review. the report noted risks from liquefaction lan slides and other seismic concerns were found to be low at the project site. also, the project site isn't

located on aland slide zone. further, the sequa determination included analysis for rock slope stabilization issues specific to the site. during sequa review a supplemental geotechnical report was prepared for the project which identified a alternative method for stabilizing the slope located at the rear of the property and related to abating the notice och evaluation thmpt imp lmation of the supmentm geotechnical reports are subject to further review and apruvlg by dbi. to provide with more information with regards to geotechnical considerations dbi reviewathize report and sublmental report and during dbi pchs review process the project will comply with applicable section thofz san francisco building code. the geotechnical report include a

determination as to whether monitoring should be done for builds squgz streets during construction. the final buildings planerize reviewed by dbi and determine additional site specific reports if sites specific reports are required. further more, the project site is subject to the slope protection act adopted boo the board in 2008. this ordinance created procedures for additional review and slopes stability for properties within a certain area and established a structural advisory commithy for review oof permit application in the area. in summary, the appellate hasn't submitted substantial evident that support the conclusion there are unusual circumstances that justify removing the project from a class 1 categorical exemption. further more, the appellate hasn't presented

stelsh evident there is a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances. the categorical exemption determination compalestines with the requirement oof sequa and the project is appropriately exemp from environmental review therefore i urge you to auphold the exemption and deny the epeal. >> thank you very mump. at this time we will hear from the project sponsor. you will have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon jody knight from [inaudible] on behalf of project sponsor. the staff did a great job giving the basics of the project. as you heard the project involves a small addition to a modest single family home about 407 square

foot addition and [inaudible] and then slope stabilization which you heard about. 26 hawjs and 358 volayee share a slope despite the fact that both properties have responsibility for slope, 26 hawjs has taken it upon themselves to fix the slope, pay all the cost squz undertake all the slope work and they are ready to move ahead with that. they are prevented from doing that by mrs. mars opposition to the project including the sequa appeal. in addition to doing the work between 26 hawjs and 35 aket voilateao the owner oz of 26 hawjs will pay for the [inaudible] the owner of 30 hawjs who is supportive 2406 project and anxious for that slope work to move head is here today if you have any questions for her she is happy >> student address those.

26 hawjs is trying to fix all 4 slopes and thrai are ready to move ahead and do that as soon as this appeal is conclude. thrai directed by dbi to pum the permit for the slope work which they did u but they can't move ahead with that until after the sequa appeal hearing. thaw put together a team that includes geotechnical engineer [inaudible] geologist [inaudible] who are expercent in their field. brent harass is a specialty contractor who is a expercent in these project. mr. [inaudible] is here today if you have any questions about the slope work. we also have the architect here if you have any questions. as you heard and as you know, dbi

will thoroughly [inaudible] slope proposal submitted and make sure it is appropriate for the work in addition we already have a expercent team assembled that works with the sit a to make assure the best solution is proposed kw implemented, but they can't do that untell we get through this hearing therefore i ask for your support of the project. >> thank you very mump. at this time i would like to open up to public comment for those in opposition of the appeal. are there member thofz public who would like taspeak in opposition inseeing none public comment is closed. now i will allow up to 3 minutes for a rebutal from the appellate. mam, would you like to-ma'am? would you like to provide a rebutal? >> my attorney steven wit is here and will speak on that >> you have up to 3 minutes

>> good afternoon madam president and members and supervisors. [inaudible] shift responsibility off your shoulders. sequa is the law, slope protection act is a additional law. sequa requires if there are is a environmental hazard there is a process to go through. i have spoken to all the people. mr.hension, mr. duffy, mr. reardon and what they say is that they want private parties to solve this. i'm here to tell you, i submitted an agreement 2 months ago. i was batted back and forth between 2 law firms. still, no signed agreement. we are here ready, willing, able to

solve the problem, to give access to 358 volayo to do the work. by the way, mr. wals told me in speaking to mr. gillpin that mr. gillpin thanked him for coming into the project because the project orig was meant to save money, time, expedite the process. that does not protect the people on the slope in that area. not just mar but the people below here. i know the planning commission would like to say that well, you know we'll let dbi take care of it. no, the law says you is to look at it and the law says you have clear and convincing evidence, that there is a serious serious serious problem. if you

want to ignore that and [inaudible] to privilege and wealth. there is also [inaudible] i'm here to tell you that this is a dangerous situation. read the letters from mr. wallace and clark and [inaudible] they make it very clear t is a serious serious problem. all we want is to have the folks here deal in good faith, provide consultantss. i was wait frg a consultant to come 2 munts agoy and never showed up. a lot of misinformation here folks. a lot of misinformation and it makes me upset and i hope the city, the city gimpt does what is supposed to do under sequa and doesn't defer responsibility to protect not

only mrs. mar, but all the people below. that is your duty. thank you >> thank you very much. okay, at this time colleagues this item is held and now closed and in the hand of the board of supervisors. so, supervisor christensen >> so, the one thing that i think we lugree on is that the stability of the cliffs in telegraph hill is critical. not only to the project sponsors property, not only to the project aopponent and also a number of residence that surround it. we have a history of cliff failures aroupds telegraph hill, not only is the rock there somewhat fragile but had quaury faces on the east side of the hell. i was sitting here making a list of the failures that occurred just in the last tent to 20 years. in the 1990's the city had to pull

a 20 unit apartment building off the side of the hill after the land eroded. in 2007 there is a rock slide on broad way. in 2010 friends of my had to do a similar stabilization project at great expense 2 blocks away on month gum rea street. the city is spending millions of dollars to stabilize cliffs in lum bard and pioneer park so we can agree this is a serious condition and it doesn't just effect the 2 properties represented here today or the 3 properties, but a number of residences below and adjacent to the project in question. i think it is very very serious and that we need to stop arguing and figure how to fix this because it does impact so many people. the project sponsors engineers have come up with a solution to stabilize the slope in a way that is respected, in a way

that is accessible. it is similar to the other stabilization project on munt gum rewhich i'm familiar with. dwr think in the case of sequa review, if we are looking at the venues at the body that should review this project, what i heard from mrs. mar has to do with the naich orthf project itself, the configuration and design is hard and approvaled at the planning department. in term thofz stabilization method the department of building inspection will review that thoroughly and evaluate that plan before permits are issued so feel that is better dealt with in that body. given the legal constraints of sequa i cannot find adequate justification to support the appeal so i'm moving we afirm the determination by the planning beapartment that the project at 26 hawjs is cat gorely exempt from environmental

review, that weapprove item 23 and table item 24 and 25. >> supervisor christensen made a motion to approve 23 and table 24 and 25. second by supervisor farrell. madam clerk can you please call the roll >> supervisor farrell aye. mar, aye. tang, aye. wiener, aye. yee, aye. avalos, aye. breed, aye. compose aye. christensen aye. cohen. >> the categorical exemption is finally afirmed. this bringstuse the ends of the agenda. madam clerk are there items before us today? jarkss that conclude the business for today. colleagues thank you. we

are adjourned.