constituents and talk to small businesses. we put money in the budget so you guys could be out here. this is like a commercial corridor, so they focus on cleaning the streets and it made a significant impact as you can see. what an improvement it has made to have you guys out here. >> for sure. >> we have a significantly diverse neighborhood and population. so i think that's the richness of the mission and it always has been. it's what made me fall in love with this neighborhood and why i love it so much.

with san francisco public works. the guidelines are as follows. turn off or silence all phones or other electronic devices to it will not disturb the proceedings. each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three-minute period. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and their

rebuttal. time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or a large number of people. our legal clerk will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. votes are required to grant an appeal or re-hearing request and to modify a permit or other city determination. if you have questions about requesting a re-hearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please email staff. regarding public access and participation, it's very important to the board and every effort has been made to replicate the in-person hearing process to enable public participation sf gov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. to watch the hearing on tv, go to sf gov tv, cable channel 78. please note that it will be rebroadcast from fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sf gov.org/boa, and

public comment can be provided by telephone. that phone number is being broadcast and streamed on the sf gov tv banner with access instructions. so the number you call is 833-548-0276. it's a toll free number. you enter the id8956349497. when you call in, you listen for the public comment portion of your item to be called and dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore, if you do call in, please turn the volume on your tv or computer so it won't interfere with the meeting. you can participate via computers. we now have a webinar function, so if you want to -- we posted a

link on our website. you can join the meeting, and when it's your turn to speak, we have the ability to enable the video for you. now we will swear in or affirm all those who attend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to give your board testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay, thank you. if you are a participant in a [indiscernible] turn off your video camera. so we are now moving on to -- let me see. one moment. okay, we are now moving on to item no. 1. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's

jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment? >> i don't see any attendees. >> i don't see any callers. let's see if anyone is present who joined by the link. no one has raised their hand. we will move on to item no. 2, commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> no. >> okay, let me just double-check. want to make sure we're not missing anybody. i don't see any hands raised, so we will move on to item no. 3, commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the june 3, 2020 meeting. >> any changes or deletions to the minutes? >> no. >> i'm sorry, who made that motion? vice-president honda.

okay, we have a motion from vice-president honda to adopt those minutes. on that motion, president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner swigs? >> aye. >> going back in time. thank you. the minutes are adopted 4-0. we are now moving on to item no. 4. this is a re-hearing request for appeal no. 20-033, subject property at 1001 fortureo avenue and 23rd street frontage. the appellant is requesting a re-hearing of appeal no. 20-033. decided may 27, 2020. at that time, upon motion by vice-president honda, the board voted 4-0 to -- recused to deny the appeal and uphold the order on the basis that it was properly issued. the permit holder is ucsf and --

and two significant trees on the vermont street frontage without replacement. these trees are not replaceable due to the construction of a new research and academic building and to access driveways. however, in lieu fees shall be paid. mr. seguin, you have three minutes. >> okay, i just need to share my screen here. i'm going to just play a video. if you don't hear the sound from the video, we haven't tested this, so could you just let me know? >> yes, thank you. >> okay. sharing the video and playing now. 1001 -- avenue is a corner property. per board rules occupants of all opposite block faces were to be notified via u.s. mail. no occupants received this notification.

this unjustly suppressed public comment. that prompted this survey. board president lazarus indicates on her form 700 she receives in excess of $100,000 from san francisco general hospital foundation. the wayback machine indicates until monday of this week she was listed as executive staff. until being replaced on june 15, 2020. the foundation supports the hospital. the project is on hospital property and in the brief and the hearing i directly referenced the foundation's building which has a mural peeling led paint into a public park. the attorney general has been clear non-profits are considered remote interests and the board member must disclose and abstain. the president's vote is not relevant. her participation in the hearing rendered the hearing invalid. the mayor's emergency declaration has suspended the

ten-day delivery requirements of the sunshine ordinance. some documents relevant to the hearing were delayed. an email from chris buck of urban forestry states the frontage for the entire parcel must be used for calculating replacement trees. as in his words, how we handle similar cases. and indicates this requires planting 160 trees, not 16 trees the project has listed. most importantly are the 100% plans. the dates indicate the plans were 100% complete in october. the project filed their eir addendum in november. this shows the project was fully aware of the change in building position before filing the addendum but failed to disclose that change in the addendum as they were required to do. this change in position is causing multiple negative impacts, including the removal of this grove of trees. this is not their property.

this property is being leased from the city. this lease is contingent on a valid eir. this is a complicated scenario. at the previous hearing commissioner swig asked: >> [indiscernible]. >> we'll remove. so who's going to give me an answer? what city agency -- >> san francisco defines that person as the environmental review officer. i'm told her name is lisa gibson. it sets a terrible precedent to have questions remain unanswered and rulings based on supposition. i am requesting a re-hearing with the officer present to provide unbiassed answers to the board's questions. >> okay. thank you, mr. seguin. okay, we will now hear from the attorney for ucsf. is ms. caroline lee present? >> actually, it's charles

alston, director rosenberg, and good evening president and members of the board. [indiscernible] the regent of the university of california. we submitted a brief last week, covered all the issues that were raised by the appellant in the request for re-hearing. we believe that the request should be denied because it doesn't meet the board's standards for a re-hearing. the appellant has failed to carry his burden in showing that new or different material facts or circumstances have arisen since the last hearing, which had been known on may 27. >> i'm sorry, we can't hear you. mr. olsen? yeah, can you stop the time, please? >> i did. >> thank you. mr. olsen, mr. olsen, we can't hear you. mr. olsen?

i don't know, ms. lee, do you have a way of communicating with him, maybe give him a call? >> i can certainly help do that. >> okay, i'm not sure -- >> i'm not sure if it's just a technical difficulty. >> i think he was sharing a link with someone and that could be a problem too. >> okay, well, one moment. >> mr. olsen? okay.

>> charles, we can't hear you. >> okay. >> mr. olsen, can you hear me? okay. let's try and give him a call. can you hear me? >> i think he muted himself, to be honest. >> yeah. >> i think he did too. >> ms. lee, are you able to call him? >> i was not able to reach charles. is there -- >> there's [indiscernible] i don't know which one. >> right, i sent invitations to

each individual person. so why don't you unmute all the angela donahues and then we'll see what happens, if you can. >> if not he can call -- >> okay, they are all unmuted now. >> okay, mr. olsen? >> there's another one here. >> it's like a battery. >> okay, he's calling now. maybe he can call -- ms. lee, maybe he can call 415-746-0119. >> i had this problem on another

call today, and if you can phone and get on -- get in on this call with audio. separate from the video. >> okay. >> yeah, the phone number is -- we have it posted. >> i don't know if -- can you hear me, mr. olsen? no, he can't hear me. i don't know if he's looking at the chat. we can type in the public phone number. alec, can you do that, please? >> yes.

he's unmuted now. >> mr. olsen? >> maybe turn off the microphone? >> can you turn up your microphone? should we try to send him another link, alec, with his name? i mean, we sent him one. >> what's his name again? >> mr. charles lubin -- charles olsen, i'm sorry. charles olsen.

>> okay, is he calling in? >> as an attendee. >> okay. hello? >> this is jeffrey nelson. i called in just in case this has happened to me. i just called in in addition to being on the video. >> okay, thank you. >> did he send an email with the phone number? >> i'm not sure who he's talking to. i think he's trying to fix his computer. >> i think he had it unmuted and he just is -- his microphones aren't working. >> anybody else from the permit holder side that has the gentleman's contact information? >> yeah, ms. caroline lee is his associate, and i believe she tried to reach him. maybe she's on the phone with him now. >> i can try and look into --

>> can you call him? >> i'll give him a phone call. we'll see if we can resolve these technical issues or else i will be able to -- just one moment. >> currently he's unmuted right now, so it's on his end that it's broken. >> alex, do you think if we resent the link we sent him before and tell him to enter that way? >> no, i think it's his computer that's not working. because -- >> when he was talking, it seemed like he moved his right hand. >> he d use his iphone to access, if he has the zoom app. >> yeah, he can just hit the link and it will pop him right into the zoom, into our zoom webinar, or he can use his phone too.

>> so you think he hit his volume button? >> i don't know. it could be -- sometimes it's just if you go under settings and audio. >> yes, so let's repeat the phone number that he can call in. i don't know if he can hear, but it's 833-548-0276. if we could type that in the chat box. yeah. so any one of the phone numbers, toll free numbers, at the bottom.

okay, i'm not sure if he's reading the chat box. >> julie, if we don't get this resolved soon, is there a way to kind of suspend this item and try to fix it and -- >> well, he's the attorney for the next item as well. >> okay. >> so we need to resolve it. it would be great if he could

just call in. >> julie, can you hear me? >> yes, i can. >> can you hear me? >> yes, i can. >> i'm sorry, i can't hear you now, but i have charles linked on to my phone. so if you unmute my phone connection to the meeting, then we'll have him on the meeting. >> okay, wonderful. let's go to -- okay, your phone is unmuted now. >> hang on just a second. okay. >> you unmuted all the phone numbers? >> yes. >> he can also use his iphone and just click on a link and he would have the video. >> got it. well, i've got him on the phone with me, and i'm on the meeting

on my phone, but i believe my phone is muted. >> no, i unmuted you. >> oh, okay. >> there we are. we're on. >> mr. olsen, we wanted to give you a chance to warm up. >> yeah. i'm sorry about that. >> i'm not sure what happened, but . . . >> i don't know. i spend half my day on zoom. it always works fine. charles olsen. i'll assume you didn't hear anything i said. i'm representing the regent of the university of california, and we oppose the request for reconsideration of this matter because we feel the appellant has not met his burden to demonstrate that there's new or different evidence that was not available on may 27 that would affect the outcome of the earlier board decision. we submitted a full brief on this issue last week. if people have had a chance to read it, we covered all the issues in that brief.

if not, just very briefly the reasons are the lead agency [indiscernible] for this project because it's land under the control that will be used for a research building, the two organizations, the city and the regents, have a long-standing relationship at general hospital. pursuant to that responsibility as lead agency, the regent has prepared a very thorough and impact report for this project back in 2016. they updated that with an addendum in 2019 that covered some changes to the project in connection with further revealed by the -- i'm sorry, the preservation commission and the civic bird commission. the time to challenge those environmental documents is long past. the documents are now presumptively valid under case law. so in this case it's acting as a

responsible agency because they are [indiscernible] permits for work within the jurisdiction. in that regard, to the extent anyone has objections to -- or is claiming that the environmental review was somehow inadequate, that appeal should not be going to the board of appeals but as indicated in our letter under the code section 31.16 of the [indiscernible] code any such appeal of [indiscernible] by the city needed to be directed to the board of supervisors, not the board of appeals. on similar other issues that were raised, obviously yes there's been a shutdown with covid-19, access to some information, but the information that was cited by the appellant in their request for reconsideration was all available either in 2016 or 2019 being the eir or the addendum or the minutes from the parks commission.

so there's no new information. >> okay, mr. olsen. thank you. your time is up, sir. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay, we will now hear from the department, mr. buck. >> good evening, commissioners. chris buck with public works, urban forestry, and i also have three minutes? is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> okay, so i'm just going to address exhibit 6, 7 and 8, and i'll just do them in sequential order. in exhibit 6, page 1,631 there's a discussion about the tree planting requirement or in lieu that the project triggered. that is [microphone feedback] that was referenced in the hearing. we did at some point talk about other frontage and trees that would be required to be planted.

exhibit 7, page 1,633, notes from chris buck, urban forestry, how to win board of appeals hearings, if you read through those notes that were kept by the project team members, i'm actually pretty impressed the amount of times that i referenced and recommended that politics reach out to the appellant -- aapplicants reach out to the appellants. buck recommends reaching out to him to understand his concerns, request respectfully what his concerns are. outreach to appellant. a3, project to contact buck, the recommendations on how to listen and work with the appellant. so i had a lot of discussions about recommendations to reaching out to the appellant. and then also item 3 was all parties listed on what the project boundaries -- all

parties are aligned on what the project boundaries are in terms of how many trees or [indiscernible] will be required. none of this is new information, and then exhibit 8, list of trees removed by sf general gardener, we have an email from march 4 confirming that the tree that was removed and not by the project team but by the department of public health, ms. wood, was not significant, even when we were erroneously considering any trees on that site to be significant. so really i just want to address those three things. don't see anything in here that's new, was not coaching anyone on how to win an appeal, and again -- >> 30 seconds. >> tree planting requirements are always required, so that's all i want to provide at this time. thank you.

>> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? i'm just going to go slowly. i don't see anyone raising their hand who -- there is only one attendee, so in terms of -- >> the attendee is on the phone as well. >> right. so at this point, commissioners, the matter is submitted. and we have a question from president lazarus. >> actually, what i'd like to do is respond to an allegation that i have a conflict of interest in this matter, and i believe that our deputy city attorney will explain the situation. >> sure. good evening, commissioners. brad rusty from the city attorney's office. we looked into the question of whether commissioner lazarus has

a conflict in this matter and determined that she does not have a conflict under section 10.90 of the government code or any other provision of law because she worked for a separate legal entity for ucsf. >> thank you. >> so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> i don't see any new information presented. so that would make a re-hearing inappropriate. >> i agree with the commissioner. i don't see any new information, and just to reiterate for the appellant that the matter is mott specifically before this body, even though you may have outstanding questions regarding

that document. that's not before us today. any information that you could not have received is presented today and i have not seen those materials. that would not have been previously available to you. >> i would concur. the bar for re-hearing is quite hard -- quite high. after reviewing the material and the oral that was given, i see that the bar has not been met or manifested just. >> the motion? >> i'll make the motion. do deny the request for re-hearing on the basis that there is no new material that could not have been presented at the previous hearing. >> okay. we have a motion from vice-president honda to deny the request on the basis that there's no manifest injustice

and that there's no new evidence that couldn't have been presented at their earlier hearing. on that motion, president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner swigs? >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0 and the request is denied. so we are now moving on to item no. 5.

>> where the project is located are classified as moratorium streets. they were recently under construction for several years due to upgrades after the san bruno gas explosion. application is blank with no construction diagram and not approved. without more to be yu -- relocat work in the civic arts collection requires public notification and solicitation of public comment and input from the original artist.

gerald wallberg lives in sacramento. he was not asked for in put. the arts commission has a member rum of understanding from the city agency requesting the most. e-mail from allison cummins states they require an m.o.u. and requests show they never received an m.o. san francisco ordinance is 2% of construction costs on projects such as this one to be paid to the arts enrichment fund and the california constitution the university autonomy has a public trust. true, but the land is not with the university trust entity it is with the corporation of the region of the university of california. the management entity, this corporation is subject to the laws and ordinances of san francisco, like any other corporation. they owe the arts enrichment fund their fair share, $4 million. before the building permit can be issued. mayor lee's program classified this location as a high injury

corridor and it requires approval of a street scape plan of pedestrian improvements require to permit approval. records request with the planning department show no street scape plan was submitted. without an approved street scape plan, the d.b.i. permit should not have been issued. d.p.h. article 12 was i ammented discouraging drinking water for being used for toilets or irrigation. an e-mail notified sarah ed bolt the permit required article 12 comply within from puk and they have not received an article 12 application and d.p.h. says they did not receive the application. the building is not designed to reuse water or a non pot able water system. without approval from d.p.h. and p.u.c. the permit should not have been issued. article 16 requires one street

tree per 20 feet of street front age of the property containing the project. the parcel is 3,220 feet per the assessor map. there were 17 existing street trees at last count and that would require the project to plant 144 street trees. an e-mail confirms. he states to be consistent with how we handle similar cases, 3,026 feet requiring the planning of 160 trees. with just 17 existing trees, there is quite a gap to make up. the project's tree planning protection application lists only 16 street tree replacements and is invalid. without an approved tree planning application, listing the correct number of trees, 144, the d.b.i. permit should not have been issued and it was to existing a.d.a. parking

spaces during construction. no a.d.a. parking spaces have been preserved and the project is in violation of the a.d.a. this parcel is within an air pollutant exposure zone. and submitted to planning and a health risk assessment completed by bay area air quality management district. records request show neither has been approved. they filed their e.i.r. in 2016. that document, erroneously states the project is not located within 300 feet of an urban bird refuge. san francisco planning records show, as of 201s. this project is within 300 female of an urban bird refuge. this error invalidates the e.i.r. additionally, as is parcel has urban bird refuge zoning the project is required to comply with san francisco standards for bird safe buildings. project does not fully comply with this bird safe zoning requirements, so the d.b.i. permit should not have been

issued. with size and duration of such projects, it's understandable that they change overtime. in may of 2019, the building's height was changed to match the height of the existing buildings per the arts commission review. at the same time, the position of the building was moved east art. in june of 2016, plans were 50% complete. in october, plans were locked and 100% complete. in november, the project filed an addendum to the e.i.r. in the addendum, the project only discloses the new change in height and states no new significant effected. eveeffects even thoughit new thn changed, it failed to disclose that change. in fact, the addendum uses the same schematic as the original e.i.r. with the original building position. even though they had the 100% plans of the new building location, which should have been

disclosed. this change in position is causing four negative impacts biological, the loss of urban bird refuge, transportation, impeding of a public right-of-way on vermont street and access to the 22nd street pedestrian bridge, cultural, loss of sculpture in the civic art collection and destruction of trees. back in the 2008 hospital rebuild e.i.r. with the city of san francisco as the lead agency, this grove of trees was classified as open space and required to be protected. this complies with san francisco's general plan and planning code section 101.1 guidelines to preserve open space. ucsf now acting as the lead agency in this eir, they abuse their portion of authority and do not receive the designation of this grove of trees as open space. this is in direct conflict with

the city's general plan and should not be allowed. this project was fast tracked by political pressure. all of these issues need to be resolved before the permit is approved. >> time. >> thank you. ok, we will now hear from mr. olsen or from the permit holder. who will be speaking son behalf of ucsf. maybe we should try the phone again. >> i'll lead out with project information and i'm going to ask charles to follow me out i want to briefly help the commissioners understand the nature of the project and i'm

going to share my screen here briefly. thank you president and members of the board. my name is jeffrey nelson and we're helping ucsf build this project here at san francisco general. the permit that's been appealed in front of you is a building permit to effectively allow really modest flat work. basically pavement, curbs, some bio retention area to plant the trees that we were just talking about and so, the permit is not it does not and cannot allow the construction of the building. and to the issues that were brought up, in the spirit of public hearings, it would have

been nice to have any of that frankly available to us ahead of the hearing to be able to respond to because just as i was writing these down, you know, he does not have the information or the facts that the department of public-health was the agency that moved the art work and they had the approval to do that. it was not us, the department of public works did determine the a.d.a. parking space can move over to the garage across the street. yes we placed fences and with the permits we hold and actually the site was taken over by d.p.h. at the beginning of the there's just a whole host of allegations and i would just ask charles to follow me up here but basically the permit in front of you is essentially to do the parking and drop off area that is to the north of the building between building 5 and the

research building we're proposing to construct. if you have anything to add? >> thank you. >> mr. olsen. >> can you stop the time until we get -- >> mr. olsen. let's -- one moment. ascan you puthim on spotlight. i don't know if you can hear me or if your iphone is muted. >> i can hear you. can you hear me. >> we cannot hear him. mr. olsen. >> ok, you can hear my now. please proceed. >> very briefly, we had no

information as to what would be raised by the appellant but many of them are the same and what at issue in the hearing is relates to the region's procedures for seek ra and as i indicated earlier, the city's role is a responsible agency. just a point of clarification, the regions are constitutional and creative state entity or the equal power with the state government article 9 section 9 of the state constitution and never using land for education purposes and so they're not subject of the art requirement and some other provisions which the appellant it's a very high bar for preparing additional environmental review that has to be evidence of the impact or an

severity of previously identified significant impacts because of the change in circumstances. saying something it can't be argument and speculation and it has to be evidence and with that, i will pause my comment and if there are any questions from the board, i will be available to answer. >> we concede our time. >> ok. >> i don't see any questions at this point so we'll hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez, you have seven minutes. >> the planning department was

one of the agencies that reviewed and approved the subject permit that maybe i can just briefly respond to some of the issues that were raised by the appellants and reiterating what mr. nelson and mr. olsen said in their presentation. the university of california is the lead agency. the project and they evaluated this project and the i.r. and the city and county of san from did not prepare the e.i.r. they have the responsibility foray proving and implementing the ucsf research academic building and foray proving the crown long-term ground lease. in which the building will be operated and the uc region has a responsibility to carry out the measures and they also prepared the addendum last year and the planning department and the city have been involved in initially i think the e.i.r. contemplated a projectory construction or expansion of a garage structure

that would have been something that was permitted and reviewed by the city and believed that scope of work has changed and it's no part of the project and it's something that is within the authority of the u.c. region so the concerns that the appellant had related to the efficacy of the e.i.r. should be addressed to the u.c. regions and they're the lead agency on this as i said previously. this is an interesting jurisdictional question that the board of appeals has not typically have and ucsf, i agree everything they said about the jurisdiction and generally the zoning and all of their land use regulations don't apply for the uc projects if it's on land that they own or lease. there is a section in this discussion in the e.i.r. to this effect and they do their best

and they have separated unique constitutional authority. to some kind of corrections on backs stated by the appellant they argued it's within 300 feet of an urban bird refuge under planning code 139 that only applies if the building is within 300 feet of an urban bird refuge, the lot itself is within 300 feet but the building nowhere near within 300 feet of an urban bird refuge. having this project before the planning department as part of our normal programming process, we would have stated that the location related standard for section 139 would not apply so it's a correct that one item for the record and it was section 138.1 better street requirements

and this is also discussed in the e.i.r. and it's noted that that requirement would only apply to the garage instructionture thastructurecond have been under the authority and jurisdiction of the city. again, i'm available for any questions and that's my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. >> ok. we are moving onto the department of building and inspection. i don't see any questions. mr. duffy. >> any questions. there's project under appeal. they've been through several agencies for review. it was filed on the 16th of january 2020 and issued on the 20th of april 2020 and suspended on may 4th due to the appeal. i don't see any d.b.i. issues with the permit and i believe it's property approved and it should that's all i have to say.

thank you. >> thank you. ok. we are now moving on to public comment. i don't see any callers and the computer. so, we will move on to rebuttal. mr. sageen, you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> one second and i'll share my screen again. >> ok. >> e.i.r. process is designed to allow public feedback to lessen the need for lawsuits, the e.i.r. is filed. the public comments. the project implement changes, files and new e.i.r. or addendum. and the public is allowed a final chance to comment and object. in this case, the public was denied that final opportunity to comment or object because the project failed to disclose the negative impacts even though

they were known to the project. and that's why we are here. the lawyers are quick to point out the san mateo garden case and the college ran out of money and decided to destroy a garden to save construction costs, it's not relevant here as san mateo declared their intentions while in this case, ucsf did not disclose their intentions in the e.i.r. addendum. rather, they concealed them from the public. what is important to note are the dates. it first goes to trial in 2012, then appeal, then california supreme court. final decision, 2017. five years. who wins here? the garden had a stay of execution but no long-term win. the college's legal bill was more than the construction bill. not really a win. only the lawyers win. that's why i'm here. i want to protect the environment in my neighborhood. they want to construct a building supposedly for the good of the city.

i have to believe that there should be common ground. please, take a stand here. if it goes to the courts, no one will win. this is not their property. this is city property being leased contingent on a valid e.i.r. a grove of city trees is being destroyed. this is a complex and technical issue. the city's authority on these issues is the environmental review officer and they are charged with assisting other agencies regarding all manners of e.i.r. and ceqa. i'm requesting the hearing be continued and the officer be present to provide impartial answers to the board's questions. this project has a multiple of problems that need to be rereceived before you approve this permit. i focus on environmental injustice and doing so, i have experienced firsthand corruption of government and a pews of authority. it would be a great disservice not to take a moment to recognize the social injustices being fought against it. my remaining time is a moment of

silence in support of black lives matter. >> we'll move to mr. olsen or mr. nelson. >> jeffrey here. i have nothing further to add. >> thank you. >> i have nothing further. >> mr. sanchez, do you have

anything to add? >> since the appellant brought it up again about the e.r.o., i believe the contact staff in our environmental planning section and they responded to him with the same thing that i said that this is out of the jurisdiction and it's their e.i.r. and they're responsible for implementing the e.i.r. and any questions to be districted to the region. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. so, now we're moving on to, i just want to make sure we don't have questions. mr. duffy, do you have anything further we have a question i apologize. commissioner tanner. >> you can wait until after. i didn't know if you were done yet. >> mr. duffy, do you have anything further? >> no, nothing. >> thank you. this matter is submitted. >> tanner has a question. >> right. >> question for the appellant,

have participated in dialogue with permit holders, calls, e-mails and anything the matters that you are concerned with. >> i initially contacted them because during the propofol prol previous and they were right biological survey of the windows and and basically at that point the communications indicated that they were going to do whatever they were going to do and there was no room for negotiations or protection of the environment beyond their permit requirements. >> as far as the e.i.r., are your issues because they came more relevant or more recent in terms of the plans had to change a little bit. is that why you didn't pursue looking at the e.i.r. for the

board of supervisors? >> like i said in the rebuttal, the -- in the rebuttal, go ahead. >> as i said in the rebuttal, the project didn't disclose that it was going to remove these trees or this relocation of the building in the final addendum and there was no opportunity for public comment. the only opportunity is to now start a lawsuit.

>> can you hear me, julie. >> i think it's important at this juncture for council to remind everybody about our jurisdiction and our limitations with regard to commenting on e.i.r. and why we cannot consider e.i.r.'s materials as part of our findings. brad, can you help me with this, please. >> sure. good evening, commissioners. something that the board considers there are other avenues for appeal of those

matters. mr. sanchez point the out this wasn't great termination that the city made anymore so in any required challenging of that ceqa determination will be made with the regions. >> thank you, brad. this is not about the building, this is about a portion of the construction. which relates to access and so i don't see any positions that the appellant has taken. i don't find them valid for this particular permit and so i see no reason for the appeal as its properly issued.

>> i didn't hear a substantive evidence that the particular permanent issuance was not properly which is commissioner said for a portion of the construction. and we also heard from the permit holder refuting some of that process and how that went. i haven't seen any evidence that the permit that is under review is not properly issued. >> i will concur with my fellow

commissioners. >> do you wish to make a motion? >> sure. deny and approve the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. >> we have a motion. on that motion. [roll call] >> clerk: that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. we have no further matters on the agenda this evening. >> the meeting has adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, very much. good night.

. >> the small business commission thanks media services, sfgtv. members of the public who will be calling in, the number is 888-273-3658, and the access code is