school. item 56 is the motion to affirm the department's determination that the proposed page street project is categorically exempt from further environmental review. item 57 is the motion to conditionally reverse the department's determination, and item 58 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. >> president yee: okay. colleagues, we have before us now the determination of the appeal from exemption from environmental review of 84 page street in district five. for this hearing, we will be considering the adequacy, accuracy and significance, sufficiency, and completeness of the planning department's environmental review determination for the project at 84 page street. then, without objection, we will proceed as follows. up to ten minutes for a presentation by the appellant or appellant representative.

up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to ten minutes for a presentation by the planning department, department. up to ten minutes for presentation by the project sponsor. up to ten minutes for the party of the appeal, and finally, up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or appellant representatives. colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way? seeing no objections, the public hearing is now open. supervisor brown, do you have any remarks you would like to share? [inaudible] >> president yee: okay. seeing nobody else on the roster, why don't we move on. [please stand by]

>> additionally, the scope in

the description of the proposed project is not consistent with the applicable ceqa guidelines. we conducted our own noise study with the help of sound engineer, dan knewcome, who i believe is present here today. dan measured sound emissions from two other neighboring playgrounds, one at hickory street that had decibel readings exceeding 82-decibels. this would be considered unhealthy and be a nuisance for my tenants and all the residents that surround this project on all four sides. most of the tenants that reside at 74 page street work from home at least some of the time. the noise from the playground is a real concern for them and they have actually fired their own appeal with the city's planning department that is schedule to be heard later this month. the sound from the proposeel school yard will most definitely have a negative impact on the environment. there's no way it couldn't. the staff report that determined

that the school yard will have no environmental impact is based on inaccurate information and the exemption classes cited by the planning department are not consistent with ceqa guidelines. first i'd like to bring your attention to exhibit 1-15. this has to do with minor additions to school. this is from ceqa that's been overlooked or not even addressed by the project sponsor or the planning department. and it says class 14 consist of minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds and the additional space is not increasing the original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms. which ever is left. the french-american northern san francisco planning department mentions this section anywhere. we can only sur mice that they did not like the restrictive wordings which states consist of

minor addition to existing schools within existing school grounds. for this reason, the project does not satisfy the criteria for categori categorical exempt. it's three city blocks away from the main school house on oak street. where does this end? it can go on forever? secondly, there's the ceqa determination itself. it states that there's the project description is demolish an office building and create an open fence school yard used by the french-american school on the second page of this determination, i believe the top box should have been checked which says change of use new

construction. that is an administrative oversight. if they had checked that box, then it would have been a categorical -- it would be an environmental review. they didn't check the box. existing facilities. class one which consists of the operation repair maintenance permitting leasing licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures facilities or top graphical. >> president yee: figures with no expansion of use beyond the existing use at the time of the lead agency's determination. the key consideration is whether the project involves no expansion of an existing use.

with the key consideration being whether the project involves no expansion of an existing use this project does not qualify for the exemption. demolishing the building and changing the site for an office building to a school yard is far more than a no expansion of an existing use. there is a major and transformative change of use here and the sided exemption does not apply in the criteria used for this exemption. exhibit 4 has been sided by the project sponsor as another reason for the exemption. ok, and installations of equipment and structures.

and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made to the exterior of the structure. the demolishing the building and changing the space from an office where house is a major modification. there's no way around that. the project does not possibly satisfy the above mentioned criteria categori categoric ale. exhibit 5, 15061 review for extension. in section number three the activity is covered by the general rule that ceqa applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. it can be seen with certainty that there's no possibility that the activity they have significant effect on the

environment, the activity is not subject to seek ka. iceqa, it cannot beseen it willt impact on the environment and the school yard will have most definitely have a major impact on the immediate environment. sound measures at other phased schoolyards in the area consistently exceed eight decibel which will be a nuisance for my tenants and all the residents that surround this proposed school yard. here is a screen shot of a decibel reading for the hickory school yard at 10:02:00 a.m. :02 a.m. the report states that that is

clearly unacceptable. 75 decibels are considered a nuisance and we have readings that are over 82 for the two other schoolyards. there's no reason to believe that the new school yard would be any different. hyper tension, heart disease, sleep disturbances, decreased academic performance, oddly enough. so, there's a lot of negative aspects to this school yard that

affects my tenants directly and all the residents that surround the school yard. >> president yee: thank you for your presentation. i want to see, well, there's no questions for you. and i would then open up for public comment for those that would like to see in support of you. anybody in support would lineup. you have two minutes to speak. come on up. for those who will be opposing, there's an opportunity later in the hearing for you to speak.

>> thank you president yee. i ask for your support in up holding our appeal. for the record, my name is daniel nucom. i went to state that i am currently and i reside next door to the property in question. i want to speak to the impact the school yard will have on the neighboring residents. my windows would be above the school yard. even above what mayor proposing as sound mediation that would reach up to the bottom of my windows. i feel like the ceqa exemption granted doesn't allow us to consider the true impact of this project. in my measurements the traffic noise in the nearby areas where the french american international school currently has other play facilities,

without the play activities, the background noise, even with rush hour traffic is around 70 decibels. during times of use when play activities are being engage in, as you can see in some of the screen shots, i routinely made measurements over 82-decibels. i want to put that in opposition to a study, a sound study done commissioned by the french american international school by charles salter associates. their findings were that the impact would be one to four decibels, which would constitute noticeable difference in volume. the readings that i've been making, make it seem like we can expect more like a doubling in sound intensity. right under my window and the nearby residents, i think that's going to be a significant

impact. i think that should be further reviewed. >> president yee: thank you, very much. are there any other comments in support of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor brown would like to speak. >> thank you, president yee. i wanted to listen to that full presentation and any public comment first. i have a couple questions. were the sound studies done in the playground? can someone tell me that? your independent sound study? >> dan did the exact same measurements as the salter study. what he did was he went right off of the salter report and then he just mimicked that with

a rise decibel meter which is an industrial strength professional grade measuring device. these are accurate measurements. >> i have another question. it's for you, mr. collins. did the french-american school offer any kind of improvements to your building that would help the sound? like sound-proof windows? things that could help the tenants with the sound? >> yes, they did offer to put in double-pane windows on the side of the school yard. they also offered to reface the front of the building, which is a concern of mine. however, they withdrew their offer when my tenants put fourth their own appeal.

it's pretty much out of my hands at this point. >> did you accept that offer? >> i never had an opportunity to. it was never dish never got a final iteration of it and secondly though, there were conditions that they made on previous offers that i could not accept. they made offerin offers i coult accept. >> could you tell me what those were? >> they wanted to go on title on my building for a length of 15 years which is of course unacceptable as one condition. another one was -- i'll refresh my memory and come back to that.

>> ok. thank you. > >> president yee: let's move on. we'll have up to 10 minutes for the representatives of the planning department to present. >> good afternoon, president yee, members of the board, i'm chris thomas senior environmental planning with the planning department. josee fortum and review officer -- >> can you speak in the mic. >> deputy environmental review officer jane. before you is an appeal of a categorical exemption for the 84-page project which proposed a demolition of a vacant office building and construction of a play field for students at the french american school. the play field would be used for outdoor exercise and activities for students and grades 3-12 and activities would primarily occur

during school hours and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with peak hours of use from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. children would be participating in activities such as running, and various ball games. a four-storey building is immediately west of the project site while two-storey five-unit building and a three-storey six-unit residential are east. the building to the west has two light wells and the buildings to the east have one light well each that would face the proposed ball field. on december 13th, 2017, the planning department determined that the 84-page project is categorically except from environment review under the quality act forese for ceqa. it meets the criteria for demolition of exiting facilities and for a class 3 exemption for new construction and conversion

of small structures. the decision before the board today is whether to up hold the department's decision to issue these exemptions and deny the appeal or return the project to the department for additional environmental review. the appellant states the use of the play field would result in substantial noise impacts to neighboring residents. as part of the environmental review, a noise study was prepared by charles salter associate that is attachment a to the planning department appeal response. to quantify noise generated by the proposed play field, the noise study measured noise levels from 15 to 20 seventh grade children playing on an existing play field with synthetic turf material like that proposed for the project. using these measured noise levels, the study estimates that 20 to 30 children on the play field would increase sound levels at the third floor light well of the adjacent building by one to four decibels above the current level. a three decibel increase is barely per september able to

people and it represents a doubling of the existing noise level. one to four increase in noise associated with the proposed play field would therefore not be a substantial increase in noise and would not be a doubling of the existing noise. the proposed project would include 20-foot tall wood screens attached to a fence extending to the second floor of the light wells. they regulate noise from mechanical equipment, music to five decibels before residential property planes and eight above am bee ant at commercial property plains. the noise ordinance does not address noise from the human voice or children playing. regardless, the increase in

sound levels from students playing at the proposed playfield, according to study would not exceed the five decibel noise limit. playfield noise from children is not a noise impact under ceqa because fields are a common and necessary environment and playfield noise is not constant and it rises and falls overtime. school playfield noise occurs during daytime hours and typically would not disturb sleep. it may be annoying to some residents it would not represent a significant impact to the physical environment unless it was unusually loud, for example a 10-decibel increase of the existing am bee ant noise. noise from children playing on the playfield would not result in a substantial increase in the

existing noise environment. in a supplemental appeal letter december 28th, the appellant asserted the proposed play field project is not consistent with the san francisco general plan because it would result in noise pollution and does not provide public open space or housing. as discussed, the use of the playfield would not result in a substantial increase in the am bee ant noise level and there was a third letter on january 8th, is setting the department should have used a class 13 categorical exemption with minor addictions to schools within the exist ant school grounds and the proposed project would not occur within existing school grounds so the planning department did not make use of the class 14 categorical exemption. in conclusion, for the reasons

stated in our appeal response, and at this hearing the department continues to find the ceqa determination complies with the requirements of ceqa and the categorical exemption is the review determination. they have not provided evidence that there is a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts due to the projector to unusual circumstances. therefore, we respectfully request you up hold the department's ceqa determination and deny the appeal. this concludes my presentation. planning staff is available for questions. thank you. >> president yee: thank you for your presentation. if there are no questions from my colleagues. i will now call up the project sponsor. >> may i ask a question? >> president yee: no. this is a question my colleagues might have. i will call the project sponsor or the real party interest to

speak for up to 10 minutes. >> good evening, my name is jim aimbrams. we thank you for this hearing and we thank the planning department for their hard work on this project. we would respectfully request you deny the appeal and up hold the categorical exemption. i think a few points are worth pointing -- under scoring here. first, ceqa allows the planning department to relion multiple categories of exemptions. they're not mutually exclusive and the planning department did that appropriately. i think the appellant appears to be asserting the planning department can chose only one of them. and that the school exemption should have been the correct exemption. that is an incorrect reading of ceqa and the planning department has the discretion to chose any of the exemptions or multiple exemptions that apply to a specific project. second, categorical exemption is

appropriate unless the appellant shows that there's substantial evidence as usual circumstances. we just want to respectfully say a children's playfield is not an unusual circumstance in san francisco and it should be the norm and not considered to be unusual circumstances whatsoever. this is a use in this direct. there are no special planning commission approvals or conditional use authorization for this use. it's a standard use. it's not an unusual circumstance. i wanted to introduce aaron lavigne, the director the operations of the french-american international school, who has a long history working with this neighborhood. i do want to correct one part of the record is that we did offer to upgrade the appellant's building and very clearly did that in writing. he did reject that offer prior to filing this appeal. i want to make sure that's clear that the history of events here was that we made a very clear offer to upgrade the building. it was done in writing. we drafted it. it was ready to be executed and

it was rejected prior to the filing of this appeal. thank you, very much. >> hello president yee, supervisors. thank you very much. my name is aaron lavigne i work at french-american international school. i'm primarily responsible for our if sil tee's projects. our school has been around for 56 years. 21 years at our location. we have a number of supporters of the project here in the room. people are prepared to speak and they've already written to you, i know. i would ask if those support the project can stand. thank you for coming. believe me, this is the last place we wanted to end up. we are a school. there are children. we're by no means perfect.

we've tried to be reasonable and good neighbors. we've had a history of being reasonable, as i'll describe in this particular project. also, all of our other projects. including our early childhood center, most recently up in the lower hate. for 84-page street project he invited all the neighbors to a community meeting i in july 20t, 2017. 12 neighbors came. one of them was a resident of the 74 page building that mr. collins owns. mr. collins did not attend that meeting. at that meeting, we heard from the neighbors, comments about noise, about light, and about hours of use. at that meeting we made it clear that we welcomed any further comments from any neighbors and i believe the planning department process also accepted comments at that time while it was in planning. as a result of that meeting, we

met separately with groups of neighbors who wanted to talk more. those included groups of neighbors from another directly abutting property at 75 lilly street and also a group of neighbors from across the street directly across the street at 55 page street. in addition, we also made our reaches to mr. collins, who owns but doesn't live at 76 page. we never heard any further comments from residents at 76 page during the period of time it was being reviewed and designed. there was no request for a discretionary review at planning. after those meetings we had with the two groups of direct neighbors from lilly and page street we made changes to the design. we put in the noise screens that were described for privacy and light shielding. we also made numerous changes to the facades that were facing page street and lilly street based on neighbor and planning

department input. during the course of all of this, we did have numerous conversations with mr. collins, who i believe was acting in the interest of his tenants. we did make several changes along the property line as discussed. we made several offers to mr. collins. when i informed him, proactively in october, that our permit had been issued, he told me he was just going to make his appeals to the board of appeals. i do hope, when this is resolved, we can work with the tenants further. if they have any issues. as i said, our school has been around a long time. we're not out to make enemies. we'd rather not spend money on attorneys. if we can avoid that. as far as the project itself goes, besides the benefits to the school, we think the project also has some benefits to the neighborhood. we think it will improve the street scape, activating an abandon site.

it will bring security to the streets. we've actual will he had pretty positive over all feedback on our security team and presence in haze valley and --[ please stand by ]

>> i'm here today to ask you to approve the turf field at 84 page. we students need this turf field. we need it for gym class. we need it so our sports teams can practice there after school. right now, my older siblings have to ride the bus across town for practices.

the field will also make our neighborhood in hayes valley more attractive and safer. don't we want that for our city, so please, approve the turf field for the young citizens of san francisco. >> hello, board, president yee. probably shouldn't even try to follow that, but i will for two seconds. jamie mcgoldrick. raised in san francisco. i'm bound by family genetics to usually tell a long winded anecdotal story to get to the point, but i will do that without a long anecdotal project. although live next to this project, i live next to six san francisco state students, and you know, they're up at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning, so maybe

it's a blessing to have a daytime situation where kids are going to be playing, and you know, the sound of -- maybe it's just me, but the sound of kids playing is supposed to be the sound of audible joy, and maybe that will block some of the honking and cussing on the streets, and maybe it might be a better noise pollution than you might expect. so the other part of this is -- the other part of this is essentially it's nice to have a facility for any child to know that in five or six minutes after they've had to learn a lesson about voltaire when i was at french american that in 1985, that in five minutes, you could be climbing on a rope or playing on a field, and not have to climb on a bus to go do your sports.

thanks. >> president yee: all right. any other members of the public that would like to come and speak in support of the project? seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor brown? >> thank you for that presentation and public comment, and thank you to all the parents that are here that are out doing public comment, we do appreciate it. but i just want to say that i actually talked to both groups and also a lot of parents. and i walk by the school all the time, and i -- i mean, i think we all walk by our schools in our neighborhood all the time. and i mean no matter what kind of mood i'm in, when i hear

kids running around, playing and being happy, it always brings a smile to my face, and it almost makes me laugh out loud. to be in the city and to be city central right there, with all the other issues that we have to deal with, to see kids thrive on a city playground just makes me happy. and i think that we talk a lot about being accepting and making it easier for families and to be here in this city, but when we do that, we also have to look at what families need and what schools need. schools need places for kids to play. and i know that french american has been taking them, bussing them across town. this is not environmentally friendly, this is something that adds to our congestion on the streets, and it adds to their time. and parents are driving back

and forth, too, sometimes, to pick them up. so i just feel that we really need to support schools and parents and kids to actually have fun to be able to get out and have some play time, instead of just being in front of their computers constantly. so i am in definitely in favor of ceqa. i think that planning department did a good job. i hope when all of this goes through, you will work again with mr. collins and the tenants because i definitely know that kind of noise and a new thing right to you, a new thing right next to you is going to be a change, but if they're willing to -- mr. collins, you're willing to work

with the french american school again to get the things you need for your tenants, after this whole ordeal, i would definitely suggest that. but today as a supervisor, i am in support of the appeal -- i mean, of the ceqa. >> president yee: okay. there's -- actually, this hearing is not over yet. i want to, again, thank the public for making their comments. and now, lastly, i want to invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to three minutes. >> thank you for your comments, supervisor brown. i appreciate that. here's an idea. right across from the street -- right across from the main campus headquarters of the french american school, they

own a lot that would be perfect for a school yard. it's on a more commercial street. there's no housing units around it. there's three -- streets on three sides and then one building. that would be a terrific place to have a playground, and it's right across the street from the school. it's not three blocks away, so the kids don't have to walk all the way down three blocks to go to a school yard that's three city blocks away from the main campus. it would be right across the street, so i'd like you guys to consider that as something we could do instead of putting the school yard in dead center of 180 housing units, okay? and if i have a minute, i'd like to play you a tape of the school yard, so you guys can see what it sounds like, okay, because i have kids, too, and i realize they need a place to

play. >> okay. so this is what my tenants have to hear all day, every day, and i don't think that's fair, when they have a lot right across from their main campus on oak street, why would they consider shipping that all down to my tenants to listen to every day? it's not fair, and it's not right. >> president yee: okay. thank you. i guess right now, i would say that the public hearing has been held and is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> president yee: we will now reconvene as the board of supervisors. colleagues, we now have items 56, 57, and 58 before us. is there a motion that maybe supervisor brown, would you

like to indicate what direction -- >> ms. brown: so i would like to confirm and support the ceqa. >> president yee: okay. so what i understand is we're going to -- is a motion to affirm the planning department's determination, so that would -- that means approving item 56 and tabling items 57 and 58. so, madam clerk, do we need to take a vote on that? >> clerk: we need a second on that, mr. president. >> president yee: supervisor ronen has a second, and so a motion's on the table. same house, same call. >> clerk: roll call vote, mr. president. >> president yee: roll call vote, please. >> clerk: all right. on the motion to approve item 56 and the motion to table items 57 and 58 --

[roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. colleagues, the determination of exemption is finally affirmed. colleagues, the definition of exemption is found to be -- whoops. let's move onto our next item. >> clerk: okay. items 59 through 62 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued as a categorical exemption by the planning department on september 26, 2017 for the proposed project at 11 gladys street to add a 660 foot third story addition

to an existing single-family unit. item 60 is a motion to affirm the department's dining roomation that the gladys street addition is environmentally [agenda item read] [agenda item read] >> president yee: okay. colleagues, we have before us now the appeal of exemption for environmental review of 11 gladys street in district nine. for this hearing, we will be determining the sufficient slow, ad canvas see and completeness of the planning department's environmental review, determination of the project at 11 gladys street. without objection, we will proceed as follows. up to ten minutes for a presentation by the appellant or appellant representative. up to ten minutes for the

appel, up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representative. up to two minutes per speaker in support of the real party in interest. and finally, up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or appellant representatives. colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way? seeing no objection, the public hearing is now open. [ gavel ]. >> president yee: supervisor ronen, did you have any remarks you would like to share? >> supervisor ronen: no, thank you. >> president yee: seeing no other names on the roster from my colleagues, i will now ask the appellant to come forward and present your -- their case. you have up to ten minutes. >> thank you very much, president yee and honorable supervisors. ryan patterson, attorney for appellant david d' onofrio,

neighborhood to the adjacent south. there are a number of significant concerns that the neighbors have raised regarding this project, and of course most of those are for other forums. today we're talking about the environmental impacts under ceqa, and i'd like to begin by reading a short note from my client, who unfortunately due to a work commitment cannot be here. as is the case for many of the neighbors opposed to this project, i am unable to attend this hearing due to work conflicts, currently out of state. myself and virtually all of the adjacent neighbors are looking ahead and are struggling to see how this project as proposed can feasibly be constructed, i would ask the board to consider the significant structural and geotechnical problems in determining whether this project can meet its goals while being built in a structurally, seismically safe

sound manner. >> good afternoon, mayor yee and members of the board of supervisors. my name is sarah hoffman. i'm an attorney for the appellant today. so ceqa requires that all environmental impacts of a project are disclosed and analyzed. this describes that the project description be accurate, stable, and finite as was found in the community via department of parks and recreation. a categorical exemption that's been issued on the basis of an inaccurate or misleading project description must be revoked, and that is what we say has happened here. this project proposed to add onto an existing building which will involve excavation and soil disturbance on a significant scale yet in the environmental evaluation application -- and if i can

have the overhead -- the project sponsor ticked the box saying no excavation work would occur. this is inaccurate. although there was a preliminary geotechnical report that was prepared, that report is generic and it's limited in its scope. it doesn't disclose the extent of the excavation work proposed or accurately assess the site conditions. the appellant's experts have investigated the question that the project sponsor hasn't answered. given the site conditions, how can this project be built safely and in a code compliant way? our expert's key concern is this massive ten to 12-foot retaining wall at the rear of the subject property. our experts have found that if that retaining wall is disturbed, which is may well be, the hillside above would be destablized, resulting in

slides and water intrusion. in order to avoid these impacts, the project sponsor would need to leave that existing wall in place and build a new retaining wall. the problems with the sponsor is that building codes section 1805 and 1807 require a new concrete wall to be built that matches the grade on the neighboring property and the only way to do this would involve demolishing a large patch of the existing rear wall at the second floor of 11 gladys street and pete boskovic is going to tell us more about that soon. there have been no demolition calculations provided in connection with this project, and demolitions aren't allowed in the bernal heights special use district according to planning code section 242. so because the categorical exemption was issued for an

alteration permit but the project is likely going to involved demolition and new construction, the exemption decision is based on an inaccurate and misleading project description and legally, it must be revoked, and i'm going to hand over to edie lau, who is a very experienced geotechnical expert who's going to be telling us about those issues. >> good evening, president yee and also honorable supervisors. my name's eddie lau, and i'm a licensed geotechnical engineer in the state of california. i have over 15 years experience in practicing geotechnical engineers, and i happened to work on the seismic retrofit project on the college hill reservoir that's uphill of these properties in the same

block 20 years ago. the geotechnical report prepared by this engineering in 2015 assumes that this would be a new development. so -- so it does not analyze the geotechnical implication of this project as described in the plans, which is adding another level to the existing garage and first floor. the report does not accurately address the site conditions of 11 gladys street. in particular, i'm concerned that the report does not analyze the condition of the integrity of the gravity wall sitting along the southeast

property line. so the wall is about 10 feet high and does not seem to be reinforcing and have red row fitted in the past. based on the current plans, there needs to be upgrade of the foundation footing of the existing building, and this could potentially disturb the wall. if the grassy wall is disturbed, there is a significant risk of failure and collapse. if the wall fails, this would destablize the hillside above 11 gladys street, creating catastrophic impacts. these could create unstable slopes that would damage and destroy the improvements at 11 gladys street and neighboring

properties. the project plans do not reflect the complexity of the development and potential environmental impacts to the immediate neighborhood. further, in my review it's crucial to address these impacts. i'm going to pass the baton to pat buskovic, the environmental engineer [inaudible] >> you're going to have to speak into the mic. >> i'm sorry. this is the gravity wall here, and what they're not showing on the flex floor up, the topography of the hillside, which is really important. they're showing grade is right

here, when in fact it's much taller. when it's much taller, when you add an additional story in the code, the building department will require this wall to be upgraded. when you upgrade this wall, you're going to have to match grade, which is going to result in a 20-foot tall retaining wall. to give you an idea of how steep this hillside is, this hillside is 40% slope. if you measure from the base of this excavation, it's 50% under a multimillion gallon reservoir. our concern, when we did the analysis, though, and we've done a global analysis, we've done a locate. the amount of excavation that would be required is significant. but more important, the planning department did not evaluate the amount of demolition that would be required to do this project. they looked at removing the

roof and that was it. but when you work on this 20-foot-plus retaining wall, you're going to be tearing off a substantial portion of the building and replacing it with a reinforced concrete wall. if you include the significant demolition of the rear wall which is not shown in any of the drawings, it's not acknowledged to planning because the elevation is at the wrong spot, this will exceed the demolition's thresholds in the planning code of 50% horizontal and 50% vertical, so this will result in a did he facto demolition. sarah, would you like to wrap up? >> we have an inaccurate project description that doesn't disclose the extent of the excavation work or the extent of the demolition. we have 90 years collectively of engineering experience

saying that there are these risks. >> president yee: okay. thank you for your presentation. right now, i'd like to invite the public who would like to come up and speak for two minutes in support of this appeal. >> good evening. my name's dan -- >> clerk: into the microphone. >> the main work is water not mentioned in the environmental study, water, where it hits the soil, and then it hits the rocks, and it goes in my basement, your basement -- >> clerk: dan, please use the microphone. >> and i know this one because i'm been living on the hill -- i've been living on the hill in 25 years, and two, i have a ph.d. in soil, rock, and interactions, and i built two houses in this neighborhood, and i tell you this rock is pretty friable and pretty

permeable. the amounts of water on this site is going to be tremendous. can i have the overhead, please. here's a map of the neighborhood. this slope is easily 40 to 50%. it's 200 feet and impinges on all of these properties. i have water in my basement, i'm sure the sponsor has water in his basement. very permeable stuff. the water's going to flow through the vaeins and the arteries.

the one thing that they didn't show you in the diagram is there's this applicant's body. there's the soil level, and as you know, you need a two-foot stem wall above the soil level, so their wall is going to be 17 feet at this point, and on the north side at least 20 feet. you're talking about a foot-thick wall. they're going to disturb the soil underneath, the rock underneath. even if you put in a french drain, the increased workload due to that drain is -- [inaudible] >> president yee: are there any other public comments in support of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> president yee: now i will have up to ten minutes for representatives of the planning department to present. >> president yee and members of the board, my name is david young, and i am a planner in the environmental planning

division. today, i am here with the deputy environmental review officer and principle planners. i will address the ceqa exemption. the project proposes to construct a 669 square-foot addition to an existing 971 square foot residence in the bernal heights neighborhood. the appellant's claims can be grouped into three main categories, those being geotechnical, the college hill reservoir, and also archaeology. the project site is located on a grade of -- or excuse me on a slope of greater than 25% therefore is subject to the requirements of the slope protection act, which was renamed in -- excuse me --

april -- or may of 2018 and is now referred to as the slope and seismic hazard area protection act. and one of the revisions to the act was that any project that proposes construction over 500 square feet is subject to that act. and also due to the on-site slope, the project is subject to heightened review by d.b.i.'s structural advisory committee. and the project's geotechnical right now is in preliminary and draft form prior to the issuance of a final permit, a final geotechnical must be prepared in accordance with d.b.i.'s information sheet, s.o.-5. in response to the retaining wall and foundation related claims, the on-site -- there's

an on-site retaining wall, and there was no evidence provided to the department that substantiates the claim that a new retaining wall or foundations would be required. the site is underlain with bed rock and residual soils, both of which are suitable for the proposes project construction activities. also as i mentioned, a final geotechnical report would be required that addresses not only slope stability by also the retaining walls and foundations, in addition to all other geotechnical requirements. and that in turn would be reviewed by the final geotechnical report, and the project plans would be reviewed by d.b.i. for compliance with applicable building code and other site development requirements. the next set of -- oh, excuse me, in the final geotechnical

claims were related to excavation. the project would result in an excavation of about 3 feet, and although the depth of excavation was not included in the environmental -- environmental -- excuse me, the environmental review application, the geotechnical report clearly indicated that excavation and soil disturbance would take place, and the -- as i mentioned, the report is in draft form, and at the time it was prepared, it was in 2015, and the project was still -- it was -- it was not finalized -- or it was not -- the depth of excavation was not available at the time of publication. and also, the -- the sponsor indicated that they were still considering different -- different