Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Playfield Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press appeals over school play field; planning staff defend CEQA review and sound study
Summary
Tenants and property owners appealed permits for a proposed French American International School turf play field at 84 Page St., citing noise, change‑of‑use and displacement concerns; Planning staff and the school said the proposal is principally permitted, a Salter & Associates noise study found no significant impact, and the Board continued the matter to March 6 for one last settlement attempt on mitigation and hours.
Tenants and owners near 84 Page Street urged the Board of Appeals to reverse permits for a proposed turf play field for the French American International School, arguing the project is a material change of use that should have required fuller CEQA review and that the planning noise study understates real impacts. Appellants David Collins and Daniel Newcomb presented testimony and measurements they said showed noise peaks in the low‑80s decibels at comparable school play yards and described the proposed field as directly adjacent to multiple residential windows and light wells.
Jim Abrams, counsel for the French American International School, and Aaron Levine, the school’s director of operations, said they followed the planning process over two years, that the Board of Supervisors recently affirmed the Planning Department’s categorical exemption, and that the project is a principally permitted use in the NCT‑3 commercial‑transit zoning district. The school said the field is intended primarily for structured sports practice (limited to daytime hours), that the plans include sound‑attenuation features and offers to retrofit adjacent residential windows, and that nearby mitigation offers were negotiated with some neighbors.
Scott Sanchez (Planning) told the Board the department conducted neighborhood notification and reviewed a Salter & Associates sound assessment that used a comparable turf site as the sound source; the Planning Department found the method appropriate and the project code compliant. Commissioners asked whether enforceable conditions (hours and days of operation) could be imposed; planning staff advised conditions should be specific (for example, stated hours) rather than vague terms such as 'limited.' Tenants described shift‑work and medical needs that make daytime noise particularly disruptive and asked the Board to require stronger mitigation or consider alternative locations. The Board continued the item to March 6 to give appellants and the school one last chance to negotiate a mitigation plan and possible hours restrictions.
