That. It does not relate to staleness in terms of the desire to have updated, current information to ensure that we are thoroughly adequately analyzing environmental effects of projects in eastern neighborhoods. We have a mechanism for doing that and that is the Community Plan evaluation process that the state law allows for us to do. We are doing that. Supervisor yee supervisor peskin. Ms. Gibson may have answered this and i think its set for in their response number 5, which relates to ceqa guidelines section 15183. I see this through the lens of what i think supervisor ronen is trying to talk about, which is changed circumstances. So, as it relates to this c. P. C. P. E. , that tears off of the peir, the argument that find compelling when they say 7. 68 visits a day which we in this changed culture is not true, you are arguing that cumulatively, these do not because we made findings of over raiding considerations, these do not rise to the level. Is that what you are saying . Chris j
Hazards that were not identified in the eastern neighborhoods peir is based on substantial evidence and the appellant has not proven otherwise the appellant has to the provided sufficient evidence theres been a failure to meet see qua therefore the Planning Department recommends they reject the appellants appeal. This concludes my presentation and the Department Staff is available for your questions. Thank you. Commissioner thank you very much. Sorry we had to break but i wanted to follow order. I think you had an answer, maam . I wanted to ask a followup question. Thank you. I want to make sure i understand correctly your first comment. So youre basically saying state law says once youve reached the density thats analyzed in the plan its no longer valid and you need additional Environmental Review if theres Additional Units built after the number of units anticipated in the plan were met, is that what youre saying . Again, lisa gibson, Environmental Review officer, with all due respec
That. It does not relate to staleness in terms of the desire to have updated, current information to ensure that we are thoroughly adequately analyzing environmental effects of projects in eastern neighborhoods. We have a mechanism for doing that and that is the Community Plan evaluation process that the state law allows for us to do. We are doing that. Supervisor yee supervisor peskin. Ms. Gibson may have answered this and i think its set for in their response number 5, which relates to ceqa guidelines section 15183. I see this through the lens of what i think supervisor ronen is trying to talk about, which is changed circumstances. So, as it relates to this c. P. C. P. E. , that tears off of the peir, the argument that find compelling when they say 7. 68 visits a day which we in this changed culture is not true, you are arguing that cumulatively, these do not because we made findings of over raiding considerations, these do not rise to the level. Is that what you are saying . Chris j
Because weve been in a longterm drought. So can you speak a little bit more how youre confident that were not going to hit the water floor even in good or even regular rainfall years . Sure. Ive been working in San Francisco for close to 40 years and im working actually on the armory and been working on it off and on since the early 2000s. I actually worked on the cathedral across the street from us. Im very familiar with this soil conditions and the groundwater conditions. So what we do is we know we have a snapshot when we do our investigations. Sometimes we do it when its try in september and october and sometimes we do it during the rainy season. We always know that the groundwater fluctuates. So what we do is we take the measurement we have during the construction, we look for monitoring wells, whatever data we have, ideally the highest groundwater occurred in 2005 and then during the el nino years in 1997 and 1998. We see how much the groundwater fluctuates overtime. We new durin
Presentation and then get back to it. Let me continue to address other primary concerns brought up today. We want to be clear the current design of the proposed project does not include a basement level for the proposed building. The geotechnical report and supplement analysis may reflect iterations of the proposed project including a basement level. This could be confusing as no longer considerations no longer apply as the building will be built at grade. In described in the cpe its only excavating about four feet below Ground Surface. The geotechnical investigation found ground water at 11 to 12 feet below the Ground Surface and recommended a designed level of eight feet below Ground Surface that means assuming ground water is found at eight feet below Ground Surface. The project is only excavating four feet below the Ground Surface. Though the project may encounter ground water during construction for soil improvements its unlikely the finished grade will extend into ground water th