the liquefaction. we have 44 fire houses in various neighborhoods throughout the city. the reason for so many fire houseicize to respond immediately to fire. we have a zero lot lines and the toapography make a unique for rapid spread of fire so that is why we have so many fire hows throughout the city. this fire house in particular houses 1 engine and one truck with a total of 9 members working 24/7 with over thert members of the house. combine the engine and truck last year ran over 3500 runs out of that location there. the fire department-we also do jet skies and water rescue out of this area. they keep

the jet skis from the marina. we think this is a unique station. we would like to rebuild it and feel it needs a rebuild for the area and want to make sure this station is standing after a seismic event so quee help the neighborhood which would help rebuild the city in a faster manner. thank you >> very briefly, a few characteristic thofz project. we are replacing a facility over 75 years in age and as you can expect it is remarkable deficient in a number of regards we seek to address and bring it to the modern era so it can call to service. [inaudible] with stand the big one and continue in occupyeration

without defect. separately we are doing practical elements or aspect of the day to day and that is increasing the apparatus which is the vehicle areas so that newer modern vehicles which tend to be larger can be accommodated separately there is sufficient working clearance for the fire fighter tooz address the needs of the apperates and deloy on to our from the station. we are also bringing a forward new generator,a new storage tanks. they are modern design with all the safety ought buttes one expects to inhibit a potential threat to environment. it is dumatic impruskment over what was installed as little as 15 years ago so expect that is a benefit to the station and neighborhoods. by statute we

are also bringing ada access to the facility. it is a public facility, federal statute as well as local sentiment i'm sure compels us to do the right thing as to regards as disabled aspects. we are adding elements or aspect of enhancement for the sake of fire fighter functionality so new work shop and gear drawing room, deacon tamination shower squz updated telecommuneitation and it support. the budget is approximately 10.7 million dollars. a few images here. hopefully you have the hard copy, it probably reads better than this image. we are growing the facility by 10 percent in square footage all the purpose of bringing it to the modern era with all the proper array of spaces and size spaces so we can

support the fire person elinto had next 2 generations. these drawings here-we show before and after. the smaller imsubject the current station, the larger image is the proposed and approved design by civic design review. this elevation on the slide are the front of the building on grinch. this next slide are images of the rear of the building on pixly. as i mentioned, pursuant taa question asked by supervisor yee there have been a number of external meetings and as i mentioned 19 by our count, 6 among commerce and neighborhood groups which are described on the foot note of

this particular side, 4 groups ibparticular. we owe a debt of gratitude to supervisor for facilitating these meetings and encouraging our effort of outreach to the larger community. also civic design review meetings sponsored by the san francisco arts commission and had appreciately 10 meetings with the neighbors adjacent to the site. many of the meetings were in the spirit of seeking some reconciliation of respective needs and expectations. we have done what we believe to be the appropriate reconciliation possible for the sake of this project and its purpose as a first responder facility for a few generations to come. rather than go through each of these, i'll leave it to you inquire on any one of them if you choose. with

that i conclude my comments and ask for any questions >> seeing no names on the roster at this time we'll open up the items to public comment for those that who would like to speak in opposition of the appeal. you have tupe 2 minutes. seeing none public comment is--okay. >> just for clarity this is anyone in clear support of the project >> [inaudible] can you speak into had microphone juicy? >> i'm [inaudible] i do

have a fire story. [inaudible] december 31 there was a fire in my building, someone set my [inaudible] if you look here this is what they say marijuana set this [inaudible] on fire, but the thing about it, i had to call the fire report to get a report and they said 32 firemans came out, but they didn't talk to me. i know marijuana does not set something from open containers. i know our firemans just like obama has given the policeman less [inaudible] the best fireman i know are inson diego. they are lovely. i want to make sure our firemans, the new buildings they build [inaudible] brand new

station 105. i want to make sure fire people when they come out they talk to the people who have been effected. i was shocked they said 32 firemans came out and had to find out what is going on in the building. i think this has a lot to do with housing. also we think fires are create situations where you have to build and i want to make sure that in these times in san francisco and the world that firemans are not part of removing people out of the sit a. like i said, i [inaudible] this st. from the container storage. no marijuana can make something melt like that. a marijuana cigarette. this is [inaudible] from the out fitters. they got burnt up, but i was able to receive it

and take [inaudible] >> thank you very much. are there any other members from the public who would like taspeer speak in support of the project? seeing none public comment is closed. the appellate will have up to 3 minutes to do a rebutal at this time >> thank you praezdant breed, member 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 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