have the permits issued for this site without complying with the most fundamental and basic environmental review requirements. the initial environmental application failed to note the presence of leaking underground storage tanks even though the project description includes the removal and replacement of those tanks or ust. dpw also fay failed to enroll the project in the mar her program with the department of public health. again, a basic mandatory requirement. for any project that has ust or located on bay fill and this project has both. here is dpw and the fire department, the city departments that share responsibility for issuing permits for removal of underground storage tanks and failed to follow the

procedures for this joint project. if you look at the hazardous materials survey in addition to the undergrouchbd storage tanks at the site there is asbesto containing material throughout the build{led is also found at the building in samples throughout the building in concentration far in excess of the federal standards. the subject site is a haserdize waets site on the cor taizy list which is a state wide list of sites compiled under 659 .[inaudible] the language of the statute forbids the use for any project located on a site included on this list. we quoted that statutory language in our appeal and by the way, our appeal was filed more than 10 months ago in

july 2014 and because of the mistake squz errors made throughout the process, it has taken this long to get a hearing scheduled. the same express language forbidding use of a categorical exemptions for projects located on sites on the cor taizy list is found on the planning departments website on the page explaining the application and use of categorical exemptions y. attached that as exhibit one to the supplemental brief and have hard copies for anyone that wants to take a look at that. the same expressed statutory language is included in sequa hannbook squz policy on the major institutions such as ucsf. i attached that as exhibit 3 if anyone wants a copy. we

have extra copies which have these exhibits attached. i was able to deliver a few to the offices, but--the ucsf handbook on sequa, their environmental hand book is the part using the same statutory language attached is exhibit 3. this same statutory language is afirmed time and time again, in fact many jurisdicks throughout california amenlded their project application process so as to screen for project sites located on the cor taizy list so that those project sites may be excluded initially from any consideration of a categorical exemption and attached many such applications on the supplemental brief as exhibit 4. this includes san diego, santa barb raw u atus

cudairy, napa, tuhatchopy, hum bolt, kern county and countless other jurisdictions afirm a categorical exemption may not be issued for sauch site. additionally, courts and other decision making bodies have also conformed the statutory language means just what it says. we attached as exhibit 5 to the supplemental brief a 2009 order from the regional water quality control board granted a petition from the citizens group and reversed the san francisco bay board decision to adopt clean up and abatement order, for a site in richmond california. the local board when it adopt thd cao found thudungez the cao was categoryically exempt under sequa. again, this is exhibit 5 for the

supplemental brief. let me read you what the state water resources control board said. because the site is currently on the cor daze taizy list the use of categorical exemption isn't proper and evaluates sequa. the board went on to say, the sites placement on a cor taizy list precludes the use of a categorical exemption. i use that word, precludes in our appeal and the departments response took exception to that. the department stated that it doesn't necessarily preclude the grant of a categorical exemption and offers no explanation, no authority, no statute and case law sopt that the department says well, if we have a closure letter then we can use the

categorical exemption. that is incorrect as well as a matter of law. let me reever you to a case only 14 mupths old from the first district cout of appeal. we attached that as exhibit 2. this a near identical situation and near identical case. the parker shaddock neighbors case was decided november 2013. a near identical situation of development that involved underground storage tanks. they had a closure letter from the berkeley department of health. they had a closure letter from the water resources control board, the exact closure letter the department is referring to. the department affirms clearly without any doubt that you may not use a categorical exemption for a cor taizy site. on page 6

of the decision, it states, we agree that the ledge slaichier intended projects on these sites should not be categorically exempt from sequa because they may involve significant effects on the environment. the first go round in the berkeley case they had given a categorical exemption. when it came back the city realized its error and took away the categorical exemption. in this case the city hasn't realized its error. there is a over weming mount ochb statutory authority case law, administrative body decisions all which state clearly and aform the plain language of the stute which says you may not issue a categorical exemption for a site appearing on the cor taizy list and that is what the department has done here.

we urge you to grant thupeal. thank you >> thank you very much and at this time we'll open it up to those who wish to speak for public comment for those that support the appeal. if you can please line up to my left, if you are in support of the appeal. first speaker you have 2 minutes. >> i was hoping i was on your left. members of the board of supervisors, president, thank you for hearing my comment. i name is naib nob i grew up in san francisco and went to high school here and have lots of friends who are fireman. i vote ed for the bond that allows the reconstruction of the fire house. i love the fireman i bring them cake

with my kids on sept11 so i work in the city and pay taxes in the city. the way it went down this rabbit hole is i was informed they would rebuild the fire house and ask k they access our back yard. i was accommodating and let the department of public works in the back yard and look around and measure. i was told they allow participation and comments on the dezibe. i hired a lawyers and asked when that opportunity would be. the next time i was a at a meeting with department of public works, i was shown a design with objectionable problems. one was a elevator next to my bedroom and the second was a garkage corridor next to had front door and the last was a wall covering up a window in my childrens

play room. [inaudible] they have not been a friend or collaborative, they have [inaudible] as has some visor fairp, but have not seen any change and as the lawyer pointed out there are health and safety issues i'm gravely concerned about and hope that you'll help protect the neighbors. we are unincluded in this process watt so ever >> thank you very much. next speaker, please >> putitia [inaudible] this case has annoyed me for a long time. the public was not informed. they called meetings at the last minute, told people to go to the arts commission at the last minute. in fact, there were 2 art commission meetings before we ever saw this. we asked for modifications at

the first meeting, they haven't given modifications. [inaudible] they are going to have 2 very dark room tooz sleep in after they have been in a fire. i really think that this needs to go back to the drawing board. i do not think it passes sequa. steve just did a brilliant job on this and i have a feeling this will go to court. if you guys really want to say something, send it back and saying r let's go back to the drawing board and that is what really needs to be done. it doesn't pass sequa and i just hate seeing everyone going to court in the city. i think we can work it out, but i don't understand why they were doing station 16 when station 48 has multimillion dollars worth of

problems and safety problems for the citizens as well as for the fire department. they have to go to the bathroom and encounter rats isn't fun. i think this is a misappropriate of money. if anyone says i can't understand sequa, it snlt my realm, it is. it is your duty to go to as many people as you can in a case this convoluted and find out what really is the truth. please vote gaens it. thank you >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in support of the appeal at this time? seeing none public comment is-are you going to speak, sir? okay you have 2 minutes >> michael polla and a neighbor. i have been nob paub about 20 years and i just find the whole process

that this has gone through to be very secretive. i have been made aware of the event transpiring thoferb last year and a half recently so the lack of discussion, the lack oof inclusion of neighbors has been very upsetting and think having a young family and having been a loyal resident of the city i think we deserve a better stack and that is all i ask sfr >> thank you very much. any other members of the public that qud like to provide public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. now we'll turn to the planning department for a presentation of no more than 10 minutes >> good afternoon president breed, members of the borebd. i'm jessica [inaudible] a senior environmental planner with the planning department. with me today is sarah jones

environmental review officer. the item before you is a appeal of categorical exemption for the project as 2251 grinch street. we sent a memo dated may 11 responding to issues raised. the department received 2 letters 1 dated may 12 and the other may 15 after the boards dead line to submit additional material. the department reviewed these letter jz determined they do not raise new issues and all the issues raised in the letter are fully addressed in the may 11 memo. the decision before the board is whether to uphold the departments determination that the project is exemp from environmental review pursuant to california environmental quality act or sequa, or overturn the departments decision and return the the project to the

department for environmental review. the project site is located at 2251 grinch between fill more and steiner. the project consist u consists of demolition and reconstruction of the 9 thousand square foot fire station and removal of 2 underground storage tanks. the new fire station is constructed on the same site and meet life safety standards. the project includes a snaugz of a new underground storage tank and replacement of a generator with a new epa tear 4 generator. the sequaifiedlines provide a list of projects determined not to v a significant impact on the environment and therefore exemp fraump sequa review. the specifically the class 2 exemption includes replacement or reconstruction of a existing structure where the new structure is located on the same site and have

the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. the determine of whether a project is eligible for a categorical exemption is base odthen 2 step analysis, the first is to determine whether the project meets the requirements of the exemption. the new fire station would have the same purpose and substantially the same capacity as the existing fire station and therefore fits squarely within thclass categorical exemption criteria. the second step is determine if the exceptions to the exemption applies. one exemption is [inaudible] not issued for a project included [inaudible] other known as the cor teasey list. the project was placed on the cor tease alist in 1987,

however following remediation activities the regional walter quality control board through the authority delegated to them by the state water resources board, determined the sate no longer presented a hazard and issued a case closure letter. effectively [inaudible] the second exception is determining if there are unusual circumstances that present a reasonable possibility of a significant effect. significant effects on the environment must be supported by substantial evidence and the department determined there are no unusual circumstances at the site that could result in a significant environmental effect and the project is appropriately exemp from environmental review. the remainder of the presentation will address the palts main concerns raised in his july

2 appeal letter. this palts primary concern is the project cannot be issued a categorical exemption because sequel prohibits exemption for projects on the cor teasey list. you heard today and read in the appellates may 15 appeal lelter a case involving the 4th district courts decision in [inaudible] however this case isn't applicable because it involves the issuance of a negative declaration and not a categorical exemption. there is no existing case law directly on this opinion, but the city attorney is here to address the finer points of case law that support the dad apartments determination. the project before you is a demolition and reconstruction of fire station 16. the project site has a ground storage tanks and in 1987 a [inaudible] was discovered and the site was placed on the cor teasey list. the storage tank was

removed and site remediated and closure letter issued and determined no further action was required. the planning department considered this action to annul the states original placement on the cor teasey list. once the site is placed on the list t is never removed, thrrf this closure letser the best possible representation of the states recognition the problem has been resolved. regarding the second concern of unusual circumstance squz the possible of significant effects on the environments the palt hasn't provided evidence to support the claim there are unusual circumstances at this site. absent the presence of unusual circumstances, a class 2 exemption is appropriate. the palt states the sites location size and type of construction are

unusual without providing evident. there is nothing unusual about the sites location which is on a site with an existing fire station in a primarily residential neighborhoods. there are 44 fire stations throughout the city. the size of the fire station is also not unausual as the projsect the same site and has the same capacity. the estimated construction schedule is 14 months and doesn't appear to be anything unusual about the type of construction proposed, therefore the department believes there are no unusual circumstances present at the site or where w the project. we have evaluated the appellates claims the project can have significant effects on the environment in air

quality, hazardous material, nys, land use [inaudible] regarding haserdize materials, we explained the history regarding a 1987 underground storage tank and in 1998 the fire station installed a 3 thousand gallon underground storage tank and discovered a 600 gallon ust when it went through the snaugz process. soil samples were collected and it was determined hydrocarbon levels didn't exceed allowable state levels and dph approved the closure in place of that 600 gallon underground storage tank. therefore, the project site poses no environmental or human health hazards. the project removes the 1600 gallon storage tank and

replacing it. this process is regulated by health code article 21 which defines dph as the responsible entity of [inaudible] regarding the construction repair, removal and snaugz of underground storage tanks. the fire department will be responsible for collecting soil samples, having them analyzed and dph will review these reports and oversee the collection of the soil samples. without oversight by dph [inaudible] at the site will not result in significant environmental has rds. similarly hazard building materialerize regulated by federal and state law. in regards to land nysand cairbt, the baseline conditions are the existing at the site. there is a existing fire station there already and the site will continue to operate as

a fire station upon reconstruction. during construction, construction nysis regulate by article 29 of police code and lastly in regards to the social environment, social effects are not significant environmental effects under sequa. in regards-in summary, the dparmt believes the project sticks within class 2 exemption and the sites inclusion on the cor taizy list which hazards materialerize emediated that place the site on the list don't [inaudible] second thappellate hasn't provided evident there are unusual circumstances that result in significant effect on the environment. for these reasons the department recommends the board uphold the sequa exemption and deny the epeal jrshz thank you. colleagues are there question of the planning department

at this time? any comments? supervisor yee >> just had a question. it seems several people said there wasn't adequate out reach can you give the >> i believe the project sponsor will speak to the type of outreach, but under sequa, under exemption there is no requirement for public outreach so it isn't a sequa topic. >> maybe someone from dpw or the fire department can speak to the outreach efforts done in order to answer supervisor yees question >> good afternoon president breed, numberoffs the board.

chairps [inaudible] with department of public works project management. if you allow me a moment to queue up the presentation >> can you speak to it thquestion specifically that supervisor yee asked regarding outreach >> i have more spinge information >> we are not prepared for your presentation right now >> so very generally, we have had approximately 19 events or sessions that constituted outreach to the public at large eerkt within the specific circumstances of civic design review or neighborhood association focused meetings or meetings with the immediate neighbors >> thank you >> thank you. supervisor mar you had a question? >> maybe it is to mrs. burn and city attorneys office.

i think there is a difference in the interpretation of law. mr. william jz palts rely on [inaudible] of 2008. case-he is also citing a 4th circuit case, but the plan department distinguish that cosbecause it is a [inaudible] and not categorical exemption. i wonder why you think in some ways the law that mr. williams is citing