thofz board. steve williams. the planning department has not answered the question, didn't say anything and this is the first we heard that they consider a closeier letter anulled the placement on the hazardous waste list. it isn't in the brief, there is no citation to any authority, no citation to statutory provision and not even indicta. it amounts to a empermissible and narrow interpretation which flies in the face of all legal authority that holds sequa is interpreted as enforced as broadly as possible to afford the citizenoffs california the greatest joirmtal protection. the site is on the list. the statute said if the site is on the list it can't have a exemption. [inaudible] that is thitsies

words, the fact the site on the list. it could have easily done that. the parker [inaudible] case from the first district court of appeal speaks directly to issue before the board. read it closely, the city gave the project a cad ex. it is on page 2 of the opinion. on return after the writ was granted the city then issued a initial study and gave it a mitigated [inaudible] the courts ruling is directly on point and says that if you are on the cower taizy list it does want mandate a eir. with the same breath the court says the sites on the cor taizy list may not be grant adcategorical exemption and speak about a site like this site with 2 closeier letters thrks same closure letters the city is now claiming somehow exemps it from the law and creates

annul: the court put its opinion that you cannot issue a cad x for that site. the court makes no medication of the closure letter changing the direct and expressed language of the statute. we presented a mountain of authoritythality this site may not be grooanted to cad xx. thaset what the statute says. none of the multiple application ask is there a closeier letter. if the citys theory was cret that woorb on there. finally these sites are kept on the list indefinitely for a reason. no one knows exactly wlut is down there. that is the point. the city itself admits this. the city itself says, one of the possible reasons why the sites are emain on the list because remediation techniques may include capping the site, that is qulaut happened at the fire house, the site was capped, subsquents praunlect

including excavation can disturb that containment and expose the public to haserdize materials >> thank you very much. okay colleagues this hearing has been held and item number 18 is held and closed. iteal 19, 20 and 21 are in the hands of the board of supervisors. at this time i would like to recognize supervisor farrell >> thank you for list toong the appeal and all the people that came to speak on this item. this fire house is on grinch street next to [inaudible] 3 dors down from the balboa cafe. it is what we are doing here through the easter phaund rebuilding a entire fire house. i know the fire department has gone

through many fire houses. this one didn't have that ability to have to-it has to be taken down and rebuilt. in terms of the outreach, i'm very sympathetic to the neighbors. have met with them a number of times. we had numerous community meetings in particular at maus coney recreation center a few blocks away firks around the external design, which a number of neighbors didn't like. first was a modern look and came back where adjustments and made those changes and a lot of the internal design as well. we had a number of architectural meet wgz the paeltss architect in my office, dpw met with them separately as well. on a personal level, i went to a number of community out reach meetings and met with the appellates a number of times and met a number oaf fire

fighters inside of station 16 not thrilled about the redesign particularly the sleeping quarters. the realty of this site itself from a pragmatic perspective is it is the fire house had to be torn down and the site itself is bound by 2 streets and buildings on each side so the fexability we have to make this change is very limited especially when you rebuild a fire house decades later. the codes that exist now really restrict the ability of dpw and fire department to design around lot of things we like to do. i'm sympathetic to the neighbors and losing a light well and things like that and appreciate the frustration, i would be doing it the same way. we worked lard to facilitate countless

meetings to see if there are design chairfcks that could be met and unfochinately the answer came back now and i'm as frustrated as anyone och those results. that being said, we are here today on a sequa appeal and on that narrow focus alone. i do not believe that we have valid grounds if sequa appeal here. i appreciate mr. williams arguments. the class fwo cad x i appreciate all the concerns around the cor taizy list. this side is abated and in talking with the city attorney feels comfortable that abatement and the cat x is appropriate ipthis scenario. again, i appreciate all the concerns over this site, i appreciate the appeal. if i was a neighbor i would frustrated as well, i am as a supervisor and wish there was a

different answer. i don't find there to be ground. with that i am welcome to entertain comnlt, but want to make a motion to move item 19 and >> approve iletm 19 and table twunt and twunt. second by supervisor campos. seeing no names on the >> supervisor farrell aye. mar, aye. tang aye. wiener, aye. yee, aye. avalos, breed, aye. campos, aye. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. there are 10i's >> the categoryical exemption is finally affirmed unanimously. madam clerk can you please go to had other 3 p.m. special order >> item 22-25 public

hearing of persons interested in the appeal of a categorical exemption from california veview under [inaudible] issued by the planning department on december 18 for 2014 for the proposed project located at 26 hawjs street. 23-25 are the motion reverses department exemption directing the preparation of findings. madam president the chirks office is in receipt of a communication from the appellate, mrs. melody mar requesting a continuance on this item >> okay, before we move forward supervisor christensen do you have any comments on the continuance? >> i'll wait until testimony >> okay. for this hearing we'll consider at quaes,achy

craens, sufficient of the department determination that the project at 26 hawjs alley is cat gorely exemp from environmental review under sequa. without objection we will proceed as follows. it is my understanding that a request for continuance has been made and wonder before we move forward is the appellate here with us today? okay, so before we move forward with that, it appears we are not interested in moving or continuing this item so we may need to move forward with reviewing it today >> that is fine >> without objection colleagues weem rr proceed as follows up up to 10 minutes for a presentation for appellate or appellate preptative. up to 2

minutes. [inaudible] colleagues arethry thereany objections to these proceeding in this way? seeing none we will move forward. at this time i'll recognize the appellate or the appellate representative >> yes, my name is mellany mar and the appellate and my attorney steven [inaudible] is here as well. do you want me to just start? okay. my family has owned 358-360 volayo street for over 45 years and i am representing them on behalf of thisism we are on telegraph hill and this is a map of telegraph hill right here. the 4 neighbors on a clich that is quite unstable and unstable

for a long time and have been working very hard even bf the 26 hawjs owner purchased in 2012 to stabilize the cliff. here are the 4 neighbors >> mam when you speak can you move the microphone >> i'm sorry. 26 hawjs, 30 hawjs, 362 volayo [inaudible] we are all on our ajais tonight the cliff and the cliff is right over here. my house is 358 volayo street and at the base of the cliff. twoix hawjs is on the top so this is near vertical cliff about 20 feet. what i would [inaudible] they'll close up the first and second floor [inaudible] and the rock land slide area in the rear

[inaudible] i have 26 hawjs i will support their project if they work the ingene ears to stabilize the cliff for sure. that is the purpose of the continuance because my attorney has-we have come to a agreement with 26 hawjs and this sh the grument that they were both going to have a reciprocal situation where we-our engineers and consultant will remove the rocks and stabilize the cliff. the cliff stabilization is challenging because my house is within several inches at the base of the cliff, so 26 hawjs has come windup 2 plans. they engineers came windup 2 plans that dont work. they didn't tell us that. [inaudible] john wallace stabilized the 2007 land slide on broadway and volayo street one block from the house. that

engineering firm does highened stuff, so they can handle this challenge. we hired them to review 26 hawjs 2 plans and it didn't work so we are having them work with twenty-three 28 hawjs to stabilize this claf so the entire claf will be stabilized. we need time for them to get in from the agrume and access the site. we need them all to the work xh to work on the stabilization plan. there is existing hazard, 20 twev and 2014 notice of violation. the building department came in and they-they are a 3rd party that has come in to show there is a rock slide from the back of 26 hawjs [inaudible] this shows the amount of rock stacked gens my house wall, it is about 8

feet. there is a footing that fell off from 30 hawjs, a big footing and they need to break that up when they remove the rocks and all that. i am not able to live at home and that is on the report of [inaudible] we have a [inaudible] structural engineer that would love to work with 26 hawjs in the project. it is high challenged project so it indicate said over here that we are of the opinion that the existence conditions along the rock slope including [inaudible] represent a continuing rock slide with a high risk to north west portion and it is their opinion this is a hazardous condition. we have another engineer structure to

look at the house and he is also saying that they believe sthr is a high raisk of clapsh which can cause physical damage to [inaudible] or engine or kill ocpants on either side of the property line. this is a very different case from many other cases that have come before you. i have researched other cases you have seen on telegraph hill. the other cases you look at are big empty lots or a lut of access and room and in this case this is a high challenge and we want them to work with us. we don't feel in many cases they have. the cad exwas a issue because this is a small project, a small 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 boar