Not satisfy the criteria for categorical exemption. The ceqa paper work and in it they did not check the box which would have necessitated Environmental Review. Instead, they just wrote in demolish an existing onestorey Office Building and create an open fenced yard for use by the San Francisco French American School. It does not say change of use or new construction anywhere. Article 1530, identified one of the reasons they got a categorical exemption. The key wordings here the key consideringation is whether its negligent able. With a key consideration whether it provides no expansion of an existing use it does not qualify for exemption. Demolishing the building and changing the site for an warehouse to a school yard is far more than a negligible or expansion of a existing use. Theres a major change of use here so the cite exemption does not satisfy the criteria used for this exemption. Exhibit 4. 15403. Also identified by the project sponsor and the city of San Francisco. New constr
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 dont 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 82decibels.
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 82decibels. 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 citys 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. Theres no way it couldnt. The staff report that determined that the school yard will have no Environment
Square footage at that time, but in todays dollars, if full buildout were to have already occurred, this could be approximately 10. 4 to 13. 4 million. There will also be incidental costs and the administration of the special tax levy, as shown in the slide. This next slide clarifies something you may have been wondering about. As mentioned, it is estimated that the c. F. D. Will raise about 354 million over the first 25 years, however, the legislation before you today has a nottoexceed bond amount of 5. 3 billion, which is significantly higher. To explain how these two figures are related, first, the Public Benefits package assumed 2,015. Its based on 25 years of funding, and it assumes only 75 of the Plan Development is ultimately built. A conservative assumption as we know from other neighborhoods that every parcel may not get built or projects may choose to build less than their full zoning potential. On the other hand, the nottoexceed bond amount of 5. About billion is also based
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 82decibels. 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 citys 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. Theres no way it couldnt. The staff report that determined that the school yard will have no Environment