investigation is complete for the site. there will be continued off site investigation but for the parcel in question, it has been adequately characterized and does not pose a risk. >> and your comments are based on february, whatever date this is 9 or 8th, and includes all updates since june of last year? >> so in that, i think you stated but i want want to be clear on this. does this present a threat to neighbors, your answer would be? >> no.

>> okay, thank you. >> commissioner linbergh. >> thank you for being here tonight. i, support. >> i didn't mean to turn off the video, sorry about that. so kind of a follow-up to president's question. how can you be here that there is no risk of the neighborhood if the investigation is still on going at the site directly across the street? >> so that investigation is outside of the parcel. does that make sense. there will be continued investigation on that off site just in general. so that will reveal what is happening outside. but as far as this half acre

parcel, there is a very low risk of that that posing a hazard to the neighboring residents. i'm not sure if that answers your question. >> i guess so, i want to ask you a similar question that i asked permit holders earlier, since the october 21--2021 order of remediation for the 2511 project that was clearly worded in my opinion by the dtsc what further work has been done on that site since october of 2021?

>> there was samples taken, the exact title, like a site investigation. and getting back to rb cleaners, there was as of now, there has been, after that order there was soil stud, samples that were taken. >> thank you, and i want to ask about the materials presented by the appellant expert here, showing the, the proposed contamination of the entire 2500 block of irving street, is that map, is there any reason that that map should be called into question?

is there any reasons those numbers should be called into question? and are those numbers not concerning for some reason that i don't understand yet? >> those numbers are accurate based on our findings. the levels of the numbers are low risk. yes, they do exceed the screening level but they're answered low risk but the numbers are accurate based on the findings that we've received. so the neighborhood association is coming to us, with an expert in toe saying these numbers are far above the residential guidelines of what is acceptable, why is it acceptable? why are those numbers acceptable?

and why should the, probably 100 plus neighbors who have come to us with concerns based on a report that you're saying is accurate, why should we tell them that you have nothing to be concerned about? >> that's two different que, right now the current question is does the levels and i think, the current question right now is the parcel the 2550 irving street and your question is, does that pose a risk? and the question is, and the answer would be no. because there is a response plan. but%backer but, go ahead? >> that's not my question, my question is whether it poses a risker to the entire block and weather the appellant convention that a block wide needs to be made that is supported by some of the

documentation itself. why that vont be a--why that shouldn't be coming forward. >> okay. actually, yeah, yeah, i apologize, i'm, i would need to get back to you on that. there is actually a risk person that there is a risk assessor that is staffed on this project that would be better suited to answer that question. so i would have to get back to you on that. >> so that means we have a continuance. >> agree. utterance, you know, if that's the case, i don't

>> okay, i'll pass to commissioner eppler and coming back with more questions. >> thank you, and thank you for being here, and i can imagine this is your first time for being here, thank you for barring with us, i have a question about the site across the street, it was recently as a core tez site, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> and we heard rational can you explain why that parcel was put on the correspondtz list? >> yes. well, i can answer why it was, and why we placed an order which triggered the. so the applicant as stated earlier for that particular site had welcome unresponsive. so in order for us to, in order for us to enforce our actions

on to the site, we had to create an order as a mechanism. which is a normal way to go. because responsible party is responsive and we have worked together. but sometimes like in this particular instabs, the party had become unresponsive so the order was the right way for them to take characterization. but the mechanism that would be the go-to tool to get them to be more involved into the project. >> and with the site that we're considering tonight, we have a

mitigation plan, we have a dust plan. are you comfortable with the mitigation plans for the current site, the level of cooperation that you're receiving from the developer? >> yeah, response plan that we received i mean, we have approved the response plan. so yes. since we do have high separation and this is a technical question, i don't know the question. we talked about dust mitigation, i doubt that will measure pc e, is there a way to monitor pc e levels during construction during demolition and construction and soil grading and other thikz that may pickup dust and/or volatile organics? >> right, so there is a there

is two different things. there is a what is called a dust monitor that measures the dust in general. and then a little bit, a little bit more involved in what the place canisters outside of the parameter. and the canister is not part of the plan. >> the mitigation and plan for the development site. >> you know, i would have to get back to you on that as well. >> and one last question, what would be the level of pc e that would be found on the canister that would cause some sort of new mitigation by the dtse?

>> sorry, i'll have to get back to you on that, what levels. yeah, yeah, i don't have that in front of me either. >> thank you. >> bill say there are levels and action levels that would be agreed upon and those action levels would be active upon. yet but, i don't have that in front of me. >> thank you for hanging this there with us, we appreciate it. >> commissioner trasvina. >> yeah, i have a couple of questions, can you with us, tdse's effort on this investigation, what have they done? >> oh yes. well, btsc was just outside last week for the sampling, the

second round of indoor sampling for the six residents. was also previously out to the side for investigation for neighboring site, that is actually not part of the irving sites but i mean, they are but they're not part of a source but they were at 1300 avenue. but and previous to that they were in for the indoor sampling. >> i'm talking about indoor sampling for the six residents. and before that, was my predecessor and i cannot comment on what his level of development in terms of site visits are but i understand he did make site visits as well.

>> i'm just trying to understand everyone is turning to your agency, and we're this is really really important for everyone involved, the future residents, the current residents, this board, your other agencies and i'm, i'm, i'm concerned president swig that we don't have all the information it seems like everything referring to tdsc, i would like to do when tdsc was, and what they found and an explanation of how the pce levels can be above what is expected and still considered a low risk. if it requires us to come back, i would ask president swig to consider that. >> yeah, absolutely.

i can say for certain that my predecessor did make it out to 2550 irving street specifically. and in terms of like, what how they deemed that it was low risk, that was, that was not based oncoming out, that was based on the data that we received that we have a risk assessor staffed on this site that, reviewed the data and they had particularly deemed that this was considered low risk. >> thank you. >> commissioner lemberg. >> thank you, i thought of more questions while my fellow commissioners were asking theirs. first of all, i want to ask what i asked of the party's previously. the appellant presented a proposed solution of vapor extraction. we heard from the permit

holders agent, regarding the feasibility of that pael. what is that take of your soil vapor extraction as a potential solution on entire 2500 block of irving street? we agreed with what david had mentioned, which is a sole vapor extraction was not warranted for the levels of contamination that was found. i sole vapor extraction is normally recommended if a course cause encountered in these levels that was encountered, was not like significant of a source nor did we find any traces of there would be a source near by. i'm not saying that, our investigation is over, we will still continue the investigation but based on the

levels that we found. there was not any signatures or evidence of there being a source. and full vapor extraction is only expected if there is a source. that was encountered and then, we could design and proper at a proper system around that particular source but in this particular case, that source is way, larger in concentration than the levels that were found onsite. >> thank you, next question. as a previously mentioned, the sunset district is unique that it's built on sand dunes which is fairly unusual ways for neighborhood to be built when it was built back in the 1920s, does the fact that the soil underneath is sand make a

difference in this analysis? >> well it is, it is, the way the soil is, does not make a difference. we look mainly at the concentration. yes the soil did make a must have made an impact in terms, if there was any contamination how it dissipated. yes it does affect that and a geology can explain that better than i just did. but it does not to answer your question, your question, it doesn't, affect our current analysis, because base it on the concentration that we found. >> okay, thank you. >> can you explain what a clara agreement is and what the scope of current clara agreement is

as to the specific site and what did tsg is i i guess contracted to do under this project? >> i can explain that on a very high level that, the california reevaluation and refact. i guess what makes this clara different is that it's, it makes it, that this is focus solely on that particular site and that's a, and, and i think that's like main point that makes it different, there is a lot of other nuances to that but i think that is the answer that you were looking for. >> okay, thank you. and then, after the september

23, 2022 meeting that i guess was, prompted by supervisor, supervisor mar's resolution, encouraging the tcsd to do a remediation, what actions have they taken since september 23 meeting. >> so it's the dts believe's that that we have already been doing that looking at the site on a block wide basis like in terms of the, different sites that we see and, i mean, if you saw like the progress, how this site started as off as 2550 and all bright cleaners so then we had two sites and then we had, tbc which was like the lot and

then that's the third, tbc in general was the third site. and then we had another fourth party, that was also part of this irving sites that joined in. just the four sites alone, we're looking at this a a whole block basis in general and we've also been on analyzing the off site, like the six residents as well indoor area. it's our believe that we have already been looking at this on a block wide basis. >> okay. >> so there was really not any changes that was prompted based on that resolution that was passed because we've already been doing that, looking at this holistic level. >> would you consider the response holistic in light of the fact that there is a

demolition set to occur by the end of this month on the site? if we, if we don't grant this appeal? >> what do you think by wholelistic? >> that addressed the whole block. >> no the response plan addresses that particular parcel which is the original innocent of clara act is. this parcel is responsible for just that particular parcel. and does the demolition affect that whole parcel, the rest of the off site, no it doesn't. it's just, focused on that less than half acre parcel right there. >> okay. thank you.

>> thanks, vice president lopez. >> thank you for your testimony. so if i'm hearing you correctly, based on testing and concentration levels that you've seen, you're not, you're not concerned that this parcel is the actual source of contamination, is that correct? >> oh yeah, that's correct. we have not found any evidence that that particular parcel is the source. >> with that in mind, would demolition activity of a site that is not a source, would that pose a risk to public health? >> sorry about that, can you repeat that question again. >> with your view that 2550 is not the source, if that's

correct, then would you be concerned for public health based on demolition at a site such as 2550 that is not the source of contamination? >> absolutely not. >> if you. >> president swig. >> thank you. >> along the same lines are we chasing the wrong ghost? i mean what i heard, although there have been some holes in your testimony, not your fault, you're not the expertise and you don't have the data which you have been transparent in disclosing,.

>> so are we chasing the wrong ghost. >> when you say ghost, you say a force. >> a dangerous concern? >> excuse me. >> so, we're, while we're always you know, mindful like there would be a source, we're not of fully certain that there is a source first of all. i mean, for all we know, there is just, i mean, very reasonable that this is just contamination, that's been spreading around from multiple businesses. mix use area just from the past couple of decades, right. and sewer lines of means of transport. so this is, i'm not saying

that's the answer, there could be a source near by and we're going to continue off site investigation. but i'm not saying the source is across the street. we have not found any evidence of that either, but we also can't say for concern one way or another, but i want to stress that we're not even certain there is a source. >> so yes or no, you are not, you are be concerned that the subject site poses a harm and a threat during demolition? yes or no? >> no. >> and you are not, just based on your testimony, you're not sure that the across the street poses a threat, yes or no. >> no.

>> and is the damage that is evident in the maps that we've seen, that is, that truthfully those spread of contamination that seems to fan out of irving, is that something that could have been been there for decades and decades and long since subsided and just a permanent fixture? >> yes. i mean, yes. if you're question is there is a possibility of that, yes. >> yeah. >> okay. thanks very much. is there anymore testimony before we go to public comment. >> commissioner trasvina. >> sure sure, i just want to, do a little hault before public comment and assess where we are and where we're going in this hearing tonight.

>> thank you. >> microphone. >> mr. shaw a couple of more questions, you just responded to president swig that the agency is not certain of a lot of different elements of this, will you ever be certain? are there steps that the agency can take? whether it takes six months or a year or one more visit that you can provide some certainty to the questions he just posed? >> >> there is a possibility that we will not ever be certain, yeah, i guess i cannot answer that question one way or the other. and that's, i mean, there is

people that would answer that like in a heartbeat but i guess, do we know what it is, is it higher or lower than acceptable. >> it's low. >> it's low meaning, it's a low

risk but above the state standard or under the state standard. >> it is above, there are certain areas that are above the state standard but low on the risk scale. >> thank you. i'm looking at the minutes tsc state wide please correct me if i'm wrong. but she said that she promised to dig in deeper to this issue, she said it's important for the tdsc to push where ever we get the most expected remedy.

that there needs to be protective remedy and that there needs to be a holistic solution, yeah, that's my question. >> well yeah, we have been, we're we've been in communication with merideth and there is still more, there is

still more data that needs to be covered. until we get more data that's what we'll evaluate and strie to strife for what merideth did say. we are taking that heart and try to be the most protective, that's our mission statement to be the most protective. and in our view point, we've been doing that up to now. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, president swig do you have anything further, your name is up. >> yeah, i just want to know, i just want to know if we have concluded this module and we're at the last. >> we have public comment and rebuttal. >> but we're at the end of this.

so my reading on this, and i don't know how to handle it. my reading on this is that, that the dtsce should have been here with more resources. mr. shaw, that is not to detintgrat your participation, and you even said that person knows it in a heartbeat and that person is not here. so, and i get a sense from looking at my fellow commissioners and linsing to them, that that they need primary primary information from tgse and they should have been on this agenda fully

resourced and ready for all of our questions, because we're, i believe that we are in limbo, okay. now, we can continue to mr. gibbner, i've got to continue tonight. we can spend the next hour and a half where there will be some people who say absolutely not and some absolutely yes, and then rebuttal and then the same situation where if that person was here, he would answer that or he or she would answer that in a second, blah blah blah blah blah. and the end game is we're going to have a continuance. is there any, is there any commissioner sitting here who has a difference of opinion from me, please raise your hand. i think we share the issue. i hate to do this to the

public, can we get suspend or do we have to go through the whole thing and end up in a state of frustration and come back and hear primary conversation and testimony from tsc and we don't know whether that serves the purpose have we gone beyond the scope nsb35, we're spending more time on this than would normally happen which is why i asked the question to dbi, how many cleaners have you come across or the department of health, how many situations when a cleaners has been building has been torn down, did you have problems all of which were fairly unanswered or ambiguous.

so help me. >> number 1 on procedure, this board must take public comment from anyone who wants to give public comment tonight. and if after hearing public comment, you choose to continue this item to a future meeting, the board must take public comment again for whoever wants to make public on that minute. we'll be here for a while. no problem, just want to ask the question. on the sb35 question. maybe that's, that's worth discussing after public comment and rebuttal. the board needs to decide whether you need to hear additional information at a future meeting in order to make that determination but that's a conversation that the board will have later this evening.

>> then hearing that it's a quarter to 10:00. and the garage closes at 10:00 clock and we've got to move our cars and it's time for a break an hour and 45 minutes, can we have a 15-minute break while certain commissioners move their car. i think mr. trasvina. >> you doint have to move your car, because you have after hour access if you enter the code. my car is in there too. i want to go home. >> but also, commissioners do you need a break? how many people do we have? we still have 20 here? >> right now, we have 67 and where the commission is going they're going to want to continue this. we're required to take public comment and we will be required at the next meeting, it's up to you if you want to give it tonight. so we are required by law.

if you do want to provide public comment tonight, even though it looks like this is going to be continued and have an opportunity. please line up against the wall and alec will, alec needs a speaker card so we know who is speaking, do you want to pass them out? so basically if you come up here and speak for one minute and go to the side and fill out your speaker hard that will help us keep track of the minutes, we appreciate your cooperation. just to keep it moving, please line up against the wall. if you plan on providing public comment tonight. and then we'll get to the people on zoom. >> all right and in the spirit of, humankindness and mercy and empathy, remember if you heard somebody else say what you were going to say, you can walk up there and say, i think the last person is fine with me or not speak at all. >> and thank you everybody for your patience. i know this has been a long night. >> thank you.

>> thank you. so welcome. >> my name is adam, i will try to make this as quick as possible. i live in one of the houses that was tested, the first two times that they test, they did find pc e and they tested again. i've been told that there is gas coming through my downstairs shower. i feel so relieved, so grateful especially with ms. commissioner lemberg that you captured the frustration, it's like everybody is doing their job okay. >> 30 seconds. >> but nobody is looking at the big picture. and my main question is. if there is, so low risk why is tndc putting a vapor barrier that cost that only protection the resident of new building and not protect us. and i've lived here since 2000 and five of my neighbors have

cancers. it's long term exposure that we're worried about. >> thank you, next speaker. >> you can give him the considered after thanks. >> i'm marcio, i'm hear to ask that you deny the appeal and we move forward with the project. we heard from planning, zoning, every agency that we can think of that while these numbers while they exist, they are low. this would provide a wages, healthcare benefit, a retirement, will provide so many great things for us. le san francisco being a union city. let san francisco continues to

build sf, local hire laws will en tour that san franciscoians are in line to build the project. mayor breeds, executive orders to build housing, governor proposele lawsuit sense avenue avenue. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> next speaker please. >> good evening, i'm john barcane i live on 27th half block from the site, have been there 44 years. quoting from the brief written last week by council. quote likely source of pc e is the site of all bright cleaners located across the street from the project site or another unidentified dry-cleaner, that may have operated within the neighborhood. it's not identified, it's miracle cleaners. and more the point is as adam

said, we're not concerned of contamination, but it's the long term affect and if the demolition begins, the forensic evidence that provides responsibility for who is liable for this contamination will be destroyed and not actionable. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker please. >> good night, board of appeals, i'm local 22 born and raised san francisco. i did my apprenticeship, one thing about training and worry about the community, we know what we're doing and we're going to make sure that number of this pollutant, including pce it's a small area, i worked in areas that are ten times bigger than this, and i've been here for 20 years and i feel

pretty healthy. yes, i would move in there even during construction. anywhere in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners andrew design, carpenters 22, 48 and judith and to mention your question, yes i would live in 2548 and i says that as a father of two-year-old daughter and two time cancer survivor. there are six dry-cleaners in a five block radius, i live next to one. i used to live next to one. so, to say that this is a source, you know, i would just say that's a, nobody knows, as you saw by all the so-called experts tonight. so i would just say please let

this project go. it's going to keep me working in my neighborhood and supporting my family and the price of eggs are hell high right now. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioner. my name is wang tang from local 22 carpenter so i've been in the district for 22 years, and carpenter and like same thing toxins everywhere, but i still stay healthy because we do the protection and protect the neighborhood. please let this project go, thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, resident of 26th avenue, i just want to define the scope of what we're asking for as part appellant group. we're asking for data collection. we're not asking for the demolition not to proceed.

we're asking for data collection by the defendant's own environmental consultant opinion, they don't know where the source is and the data may as well confirm that the source is not on the site. and if it's not we're all reassured that we're going to live in a healthy environment. i'm asking for us to collect the data to basically, we assure everyone that there is not a source and in some ways confirm what the permit holder is saying. and finally, we did spend 45 minutes talking about trees and our empathy for trees i hope the commissioners apply the empathy to human life as well. thank you. >> next speaker please. and if the speaker behind can move on so we can go a little bit faster. >> i'm marchia and i live my

home is a directly across the street from 2550 and three of the 6 contaminated houses. this is critical to me. i support the appellant's request to deny the permit. and i urge the board to consider the outcome of not proper lea dressing this issue. because that would clearly result in furthering endangerment and any future residents. and i believe these san francisco department of public health has an obligation to help under the local mar ordinance which was brought to light because of developers building low income housing on contaminated property. please. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. and ma'am if you can give a

speaker card to alec, ma'am, i didn't get your last name. thank you. sir, you can go ahead, you can give them a speaker card after you're done. >> i'm tom and i'm talking in support of the appellant. i'm a license architect and master planner for over 40 years. and i'm an advocacy trying to mediate the situation in the sunset. i want to draw your attention to the struggle that we've all had this evening talking about the absence of evidence. and what is what we're missing here is that, the absence of evidence does not equal evidence and we know that there has been some is evidence missed on the site. the sister agency is the state water board and they say that

mitigation is an interim measure and is not considered a substitute for remediation of contamination. this is the problem because it's been a issue. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> kathleen kelly 26 and kirkum here in support of the appellant. and it's the right thing to do, we should clean tup build the house but clean it up first. we heard the experts, we know it's the truth. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners and thank you i so appreciate your careful and close reading and follow-up on questions. you spent two hours asking the kinds of questions and circular answers that we spent two years

to get. until there is an agreement to do testing onsite within the footprint of miracle cleaners which we cannot access until they do the demolition, that's all we want. an agreement to do testing while testing. i sat in the room and i asked jackson and katie and i asked is it not reasonable to ask for that? and they said, yes, why haven't you talked to them about that. we'll follow-up and it's been a year and we don't have an have agreement in writing and that's shaleful. --shameful. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is robert ho i'm a property owner, i'm i own a fourplex. it's been two years since i found out about this project and the toxic problem, still

there is no delienation or problem, there is no identification of sources. the consultant keeps saying that there is no source identified our rdtd says no source onsite but they have never tested miracle cleaners. so how can they make assertion that there is no source. and also we need to be careful demolition needs to proceed with precaution. we need to be careful about that. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi good evening, my name is i live in one of the six houses that has been tested. i raised two children and i'm a public school teacher. the problem and the heart of this is money, nobody wants to pay to protect human health. the protecter will take the least costly action because he

cares about unity and profit and not those in the neighborhood. i've been in contact with assembly teams office to seek assistance. prior to his office, this office commented that we over stayed the danger. however now his office indicates that our neighborhood qualify for state funding to do a comprehensive due to our continued dialogue with dtsc, is the system finally start to go work? this is what citizens expect from our government to protect public health. our neighborhood suffered and deeply hurt to force housing policy without environmental review. >> thank you, we'll now move to zoom. you have one minute. >> you have one minute, you need. >> yes, thank you. thank you for tonight. and i'm just reminding of a meeting that we had it was at

st. anne's church in the neighborhood where we had 100s of residents and the tender residency because invite asked they didn't show up. so to ask for more time and show up later, its an insult to this process. anyway, this is so sad this is a health issue not a building issue. please support our neighborhood. >> thank you, jenny wang please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. >> speaker: hi, i'm jenny i'm a sunset resident for ten years i live blocks away from 2550 irving. i'ming the board to deny this appeal. this appeal does not have any

merit, they continue to a pos this project because they don't want to live next to a 7 story development. tonight the appellant wants either them to lead you into thinking that the project site has not been adequately studied and sf have not done enough to address the contamination. they have received he val awation and both of these agencies have reviewed and approved all of the investigations and the plan. so please deny this appeal so they can -- ~>> thank you. thank you, we will now hear from staff, is the name of the

person attending. >> speaker: i'm calling on behalf of dnb and why denial illegal, as noted by the applicant attorney's project such as demolition, our shall not be done so to inhibit, the demolition permit application was submitted several months ago under a new law a b2234, the city only has 15 days to determine whether it's complete. the appellant argues that the application is uncomplete and argues that the city has not completed adequate review of permit. if that were true, even if that was true, the city is required to do a requirement upon the complete permit. failure is also a violation of

the accountability act. it's infeasible. >> thank you. jake price, please go ahead. >> speaker: jake price on behalf of the coalition--i will repeat what has been said, but i will mention that we heard from experts over and over again that the pce levels are consistent with other development sites that have been daemd unremarshalable by experts and projects are built with the same mitigation systems and unremarkable levels of toxins. that would be a massive over step and dangerous president that would be shocking disappointing especially in the wake of our city requirement. it would be a blight on the

built affordable housing. the appeal is another example of attempt to stop the project in the last effort to stall and i argue to reject it tonight. thank you. >> thank you, we'll now hear from the person who's phone number ends in 3936, go ahead, you may have to press star-6. go ahead. >> speaker: eileen education and action committee speak of a 501c3 incorporated in 1970. speak strongly supporting the appeal. the point which has not been made or addressed is that the previous owner of the property, the san francisco police credit even union withdrew without providing rationalle for that decision. >> 30 seconds. >> therefore currently, there are no volunteer agreement also

dtsc does not take into consideration that san francisco is a densely populated city in the u.s., thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from lisa, please go ahead. >> my name is lisa long time resident of sunset district. first of all, we got so many meters and residents have been strongly opposed this project because of the monster of the building. how about the toxic? how can this be, no. answer by not clear, not sure by ttsc. all of these questions, we still want to build?

for health issues please listen to the resident, thank you supervisors, good night. >> thank you, jonathan go a --ahead, you have one minute. >> speaker: i think the process tonight demonstrate how people can abuse supposedly go to parts of the environmental review to delay projects in this case, 100% affordable project in the part of the city that has been built the least. has only added 17 affordable homes. so this project alone would be a game changer here. and besides that, it's been clear by the state agencies they assured us that they're not of concern here and allowing this appeal to move

forward, would be a violation of statehousing and the housing accountability in sb35. >> do you want to provide comment come on up. >> speaker: i live in sunset 35 years. the the neighbor say we want a clean up, the developer says we're going to give you a tarp. the neighbor say, while the clean up can be just as costly as even cheaper than the tarp. so why can't we listen to the neighborhood? i don't understand. what is the issue here? if it's cheaper it's cleaner, why can't we just, be open minded? and just collect the data? thank you. >> thank you.

winnie song, go ahead. >> yes, my name is winnie and i, i have living my house two blocks from irving and i always go to the sunset super to buy my grocery, i have asthma and my grandchildren walk around there. and i feel like if they have to clean the toxic, that means they're something harmful to the neighborhood, our neighbors. and i feel like, health is first. if the builders cannot build there besinger they can go somewhere else. why do they have to protect the employee instead of neighbors. i feel not right. when we have health problem, who is going to give us?

are we suing the company or anybody else? i feel like we were the neighbors. >> thank you, aid a please go ahead. you have one minute. >> you need to unmute yourself. ada? a.d.a. we're going to come back to you, you need to unmute yourself though. sam please go ahead. >> speaker: hi, my name is christie i live two blocks away from 2550 irving. for the past two years, we have expressed concerns to both developer and city. but our concern always been up north. we know that there is pc e level.

and for the safety and the health concern of the entire neighborhood please, do not allow the demolish the building without a plan to investigate and clean up all the toxic contamination. please request to come up with the comprehensive plan before starting the work. like tonight we hear a lot of uncertain data, please protect our neighbors too. thank you. >> thank you, wendy w, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourselves. wendy w. we'll come back to wendy w. mina young, please go ahead.

>> speaker: yes, my family has a house close by and i think there is a lot of inconsistency that we hear, very unclear about the status up there and the people involved have not been doing well addressing them so people safety and future. please uphold the appeal until things are clarified. thank you. >> thank you, wendy w, please unmute yourself, you have one minute. >> okay, i'm not sure about wendy w, so we'll hear from lenny seaingle.

lenny saegle, yes. >> speaker: executive director for environmental oversight, i'm formal mayor of--i'm concerned that the failure to clean up this site will not only put the neighbors at-risk but the people who live in the building for decades. the idea that pc e has occur amounts to don't tell, not to stop the project but to make sure that we have the evidence whether there is a source because as the representatives of the developer said, you need to know if there is a source if you're going to do extraction which is the remedy. pce causes cancer even at low levels. no, this is not the worse site but it's put ing future residents at-risk. >> thank you.

>> person with the name l.a. >> i'm one of the near by neighbors, my family lives a four days away, we live here with our kids and elderly parents. our home is one of the six houses that is being assessed. and investigation is still on going, except that they're definitely lots of areas on this block where pc vapors are above the screening levels. we ask to put yourselves in our shoes, we're very concern about the health impact on our families. clearly they're concerned as well. there needs to be a complete, we're asking you that the tndc

be modified to consider consideration for investigation at the site. thank you. >> thank you, richard chewy, please go ahead. >> speaker: hi, i'm next to the parking lot which is 2550 i'm healthcare worker and i see this safety at work. about a year and a half ago, my mother-in-law, passed away from pce, and we support affordable housing but we should do the right thing make sure that they do the right thing. thank you. >> thank you. one last try for wendy w, please unmute yourself. wendy w. okay, she may have left, is there any further public comment, please raise your hand.

i think that concludes public comment. so we'll move on to rebuttal and we'll hear from mr. wong. you have three minutes. >> just want to be clear here, there is a source. there is a soil sample that i pointed out adjacent to the former footprint. a primary release occured at that location. there is a data gap that needs to be addressed as part of the demolition process. also to talk about soil extraction, it's funny that everybody discounts that, it can be remediated by soil extraction. it's 100%. the response plan that we put together, as an alternative to the response was prepared with in combination with me with

tdsc own contractor, they supported the approach examine they helped me design and cross it out, it's cheaper to sbe. and let's be clear, dtsc screening levels are based on cancer risk more than 35 times the commercial esl and 160 times above the residential esl. as i said before, i've consulted with numerous colleagues, the pc e levels that these that the neighbors are breathing, are above health risk levelser, they're on levels on every other project i worked in california and worked on hundreds, these levels warrant remediation or mitigation.

>> so one thing that really came out, is we don't know, and the miracle cleaners has not been tested and we need to get the testing for appropriate remediation. there is very little to no cost to do the data collection that we're proposing. we set out a protocol to do collect data just like they did at the all right site. that worked, it works as part of demolition, that's really the remedy that we're asking this board and this board is, is fully condition its jurisdiction, within it's power to apply the appeal with that condition. that's all i have open to

answer any other questions. >> thank you, we do have a few questions. commissioner trasvina. president swig. >> that's why i love public comment, because helps me frame what we're really here for. we're really here for not only to hear from the public that they're fearful and scared, it's like a little heart attack, there is no little heart attack, you had a little heart attack, there is no little cancer, you have cancer you don't have cancer. i'm clear on your subject, i don't take it lightly, a little heart attack is not so good. a little cancer is not so good. but what i hear, is what we're here really about is not only those issues but that you want the site tested, during the demolition or as part of the

demolition to preserve evidence that may hold the original perpetrators accountable? so what i'm hearing and i heard it from more than one and i heard it in your own testimony and your own discussions what you really want to do is preserve evidence in case there is a lawsuit for some reason that is trying to hold somebody who did the damage in the first place accountable, is that true? >> no, that's not where i'm coming from? >> but i heard that from public comment. is that a satisfactory solution during demolition, yeah i just heard from my brain. we'll see you again from the permit comes out to build this building because you're going to appeal the permit on the same issues, we're going to

hear again that the site is difficult, that it's dangerous and pc e in the soil and disturbance in the soil and the process of building this building is dangerous. i hear the ghost in my head. but let's deal with the issue at hand. and in the demolition, we heard testimony from experts and it's been insufficient and we may continue it for that reason. but we heard that okay, there is a little, there is a little cancer possibility, no, there is a little pc e but it's above state level but not rail' dangerous, i'm taking that as seriously as you are, okay. but what i heard what i also heard is that it's not, it's not the process of demolition is not going to be harmful, they do not consider harmful. the health department said it's not harmful, dtsc says not

harmful but i've got to believe some experts. but what i heard redundantly is this needs to be tested before the evidence is damaged. so can you move forward, would you be comfortable in moving forward if as part of a approval for demolition that the site can be tested properly before in the process of demolition before any evidence is affective for further use? is that something that you could live with. i know we're going to hear from you again, i know you're going to appeal the building permit, i've been doing this a long time. i'm not putting them down for that. could we move forward with the

demolition with the condition that you're, that there is no allowance to enable that proper testing to proof one point or the other, or for put to rest that the, the soil is preserved and the sorry, that the evidence is preserved in a fashion so that it can be used for further evidence or the next stage? >> yes, absolutely. the answer is yes. that's exactly, what we're asking the board to do. what i asked the board in my brief which is to for the demo permit to condition the protocol that mr. moore laid out. >> i'm not saying that it's going to get, because i've got four other people here that i work for. that's just, came roaring out at me, that seems to be the

primary issue along with a little of cancer and a little heart attack which is really serious. thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> my questions are for mr. moore. i guess, president's swig asked one of my questions. you mentioned, we've been going a while. you mentioned hours ago, that you took this project bro no. pro-bono. i want to ask you why you decided to take on this case pro-bono? >> i took it on because i live at 18 and irving down the street. my wife tracks the community groups, she said don, this is, your thing, they need you to down the street. and i looked at the situation, i saw the way dcsc was

ineffectively managing this site and the other site, like everyone said, it's complex, the comingle contamination, it's difficult. but what really struck me is the fact that dtsc is not being inconsistent with their treatment of human health in this situation than other projects where i'm involved where i have clients they're paying tens of hundreds *f thousands to remediate at levels similar. it's like the tdsc is living in another world, doing this risk modeling that i've never seen before na is disregarding human health, it's inconsistent see in state oversight. i saw this an agrecious with what i'm used to seeing when

i'm working for my private clients, it's beyond me. and dtsc is failing which is protect human health by cleaning up con tam nailted sites. they sent a community notice and it says that at the top yet no clean up being proposed in this neighborhood when it's feasible and cheaper than mitigation. >> thank you, a brief follow-up to what president swig asked. i want to hear from what you head, the timeline, if demolition were to proceed all that needs happen is testing in demolition. >> in the scope of what we're asking tonight, that's the data gap that i pointed a year and a half ago, and the demolition process, like i said before, it's the last and best opportunity to address this. but really in my mind, as i

said before, consistent with the board of supervisors resolution, unanimously passed is the fact that we want a comprehensive clean up in the neighborhood. it's not only the six homes, there is 40 homes that is sitting above this pce plume. more than 35 times the commercial, 160 residential, we don't make up the dsls these are dsc's numbers not ours. >> so in crystal clear, is there a way to do this soil testing before demolition? >> that's when it should have been done, when the police credit union did the site, because they ran out of sight. once they sold the property, they ran from their voluntary clean up and they're sitting there, laughing in this situation. they're the ones mission, they're the ones who are the

responsible party for that contamination. they're a missing ingredient. this is a complex situation with all of these clear motions that somebody is responsible onsite and off site. that does not fly when my neighbors breathing unhealthy levels, breathing pc e at higher historic levels, how would you that make you feel? >> thank you. >> question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, and i'm not sure who this is addressed to, i'm hearing different things. as you can tell from president swig and some of my colleagues were trying to fashion, what a remedy should look like. and i'll ask you two questions. one is, i heard the testing is desired.

testing by the state, testing by the city, testing independently what is your, give me your indictment of the state just now. who do you recommend should be doing this testing? >> really it should have been the police credit union. >> that's done. >> right now, the current property owner, it should be, know, dtndc, right now they're spending tax dollars sampling in door air of the neighbors homes when that is the responsibility of the police credit union. >> well. >> again, i left the building. >> i know you can't predict the future but would yeah no, the data. well let's be clear. what date are you talking oversight. let me feel it in our in our papers, and what we ask

for is to have our people. probably mr more, um, to be part of that process of testing. i mean, there were asking it the fees with we looked at you know how much it cost it would cost. it's not going to cost them that much it needs to the there's a certain way to do the testing. they should be capable to do it, but we want to be there at least while they're collecting the data. and make sure it gets sent to the proper laboratories. and there's a protocol for that. that that you've outlined would be fair to say, mutually agreeable testing plan with participation by your organization? well no, no, i it's just like the sampling that was done at all bright cleaners that was inappropriate source investigation with six samples on the footprint of the performer dry cleaning it multi depths five and 15 ft samples, soil matrix soil vapor, not asking for the details of how to do it. i want to know who should do it. what's your preference as

to who should do it? do you trust the state? do you trust the property? energy you you know if there's an appropriate work plan prepared that is reviewed and is consistent with the albright cleaners. yeah that that's an appropriate that was done by stan tec who's a very well qualified consultant, the roadmap to do this testing the state. so stand now you're saying stanczak. i asked you to the state and you said yes. yeah. look we either the state or the state or the t n d. c. i mean, who else is there? independent experts. well who who's gonna property owners should pay the property owners should pay for it. yeah we get we get a testing. uh if somebody like, stand tech that we approve , and they do the test, they sent it to the labs mutually agreeable. plan by a mutually agreeable expert. correct right

? and the other question i have is, um. timing is it prior to demolition or during demolition? it's during um, it could be either. okay. thank you. thank you. i don't see any further questions, so we'll now hear from the permit holder. thank you again for the time, um , couple points based on some of the feedback that we heard that i just want to be absolutely clear about. we believe the dtsc believes uh, that there's no source of p c e on our site. we have no data that shows there's a source of pc on site. and this is not something were questioning. we don't have uncertainty about it. we don't

have a source of pc on our site, so we just want to be absolutely clear about that. now with respect to the testing testing is already part of our scope. part of our site management plan as on any infill redevelopment site is to have procedures in place should unexpected conditions being countered. so if we are digging down and we find some stinky soil, some discolored soil, you know, wet soil where it should be dry. we find a pipe. there are procedures in place to notify the agencies and collect samples and this is the normal course of business. so the scope of work that they're proposing is what we would call site characterization and we heard from the dtsc who is the preeminent authority on site characterization in the state of california that the site's been adequately characterize this whole idea that the sampling has not been conducted in the miracle cleaners footprint is not true. we have collected

samples in the miracle footprint footprint, and we also have to be clear that it's in the believed miracle cleaners footprint. it's based on very very old maps that are overlaid on current drawing, so nobody even knows for sure where exactly on the property it was, but with their argument wherein the maps are showing it, we do have soil samples, and we do have solar vapor samples. and finally, i just want to point out that with this type of soil, we don't have to be right on top of it. we have samples that are five ft. away if you're five ft away, and there was a source down there, we would have found it. um i had two other points that i just want to point out. you can come on up one there was a question of the dtsc about vo c. monitoring and he talked about you know, we have dust monitoring for dust. we did include via c, monitoring with the pied in our site management plan that was reviewed by sf dph. so we're short on time. so i'm going to keep this really brief. i mean, i respect the frustration that commissioner lindbergh pointed out and that others have pointed out, but i think that a few points have

been made very clearly here by dtsc and others, which are that the levels of pcb that exists on the project site are not a threat to public health. and the other point that i want to make with just a few seconds left is that many of the issues that we've been discussing over the last few hours here are way outside the scope of the inquiry into whether the issuance of the demolition permit was proper. the soils evaluation program is administered through the mara ordinance, which is triggered by the site permit. and you might say, well, you know, the we all know what the real issue is here . i'm sorry. your your time is up. do you want to let him finish his sentence? what i want to say is that you know, you might say that. well yeah, we're you know, if you want to be overly technical about it, we're talking about the demolition permit here. but the real issue are the soils conditions that

we're talking about. but i want to push back on that and say that these jurisdictional issues matter because otherwise we're here tonight having this conversation for going on four hours. we'll be back here when the site permit. thank you. that's exceeded the time you'll have this. let me ask a couple of questions, okay? do we have a further questions from the commissioners for? yeah president swig further questions. i didn't know if you took your i'm sorry. go ahead. i didn't do it. okay, so. tonight we went to the jurisdiction, the state agency. they're supposed to have jurisdiction. to give us a definitive, sure complete answers on whether this site is good, bad or indifferent. we have we had representative from that firm. who that, uh, department that made best efforts to answer our questions and answered several of our questions. why don't have that.

i got to get back to you. oh, that guy pill knowing the heartbeat, except he's not here. all right. so uh, you you can look at half full, half empty if you're half full. don't worry about it. we've heard from everybody else will just make the assumption that everything is okay. but we can't do that. we can't do that. so we don't know. all right. um so. second of all, um. we have heard tonight. that testimony from public comment, and then i clarified with the question to the appellant counsel. ah what's your what's the real issue? what the real issue is the gathering of data. okay we want to we want we want data we want, um ah, um we want evidence. that

everything is ok or we have evidence that that who's responsible or evidence that it exists, or we just want. we want evidence because because i can hear either lawsuit in the future or relief from from angst. so um, and so we're at we could be at a crossroads here. we could, either tonight and i'll ask your opinion on this. um. the opposing council said. all we want is a is a study or we want is a is a gathering of the evidence before the evidence is destroyed. so that we will never know. um and i and you heard me. ask him okay. and then we could approve the devolution permanent and you'd be okay with that. you're the imbalance. yes, that's what i heard. and so the crossroads is if we don't do

that, then ah, we will probably because dtsc didn't perform fully. just went through that we're probably gonna kick this down the road and wait a few weeks and continue hearing the and i'm not guaranteeing this is going to happen because i got four other people i work for here. uh but there is a possibility that we could wrap this up tonight with you with your acceptance of a condition that there that there will be a gathering of evidence necessary to satisfy the appellant. so you can your client can go on and get the demolition permit. will we see each other again? absolutely because they're gonna they're gonna appeal the building permit because that's just the way of the world. we've seen it before. so, um, now you're uh, your your expert who is swearing up and down that it's going to happen. those

things are going to happen. it's going to be studied. it'll be fine. so there shouldn't be anything to worry about because it shouldn't be anything to worry about if he's gonna do it anyway. so let's form. why don't we can't would you be opposed to formalizing the situation so that that for your benefit we can possibly again with the acceptance of the other word persons on this panel. so that we can approve the demolition permit with the condition that a that the evidence would not be disturbed, and a full study become pleated to the satisfaction of the appellant. you win. you get your demolition permit. you have to wait anymore . they win, they get their evidence and their study. and we're going to hear about it anyway. and you know when they appealed the permit the next permit, so how do you feel about that? can i answer is you may yeah. saved by the bell. sorry um as trying to trying to move you along. property owner. i felt the need to, you know,

respond given that we would be accepting more cost scope. um i guess, mike question and concern is that we, as david just mentioned have already characterized the site in the location of the former miracle cleaner. and so i guess my question is, what would what would we get out of that beyond what we've done? and are we just adding more costs and complication to delivering affordable housing? um which, by the way, we've been through this for over two years with this group, and it is resulted in nothing but objection at every step, not even just things pertaining to environmental issues. but the population that we're serving the density, removing trees from the same serving veterans, everything out. listen i spent seven or eight years on the redevelopment agency. i'm all about the low income housing of all about

seniors housing. i'm all about housing and central and san francisco. please don't you don't have to preach the gospel . i can give it to you what i'm proposing tonight is you there is an option. i can smell the option. the option is that you simply do what your your expert is saying you're going to do anyway? wrap it in a nice box say here's the evidence and get your your permit to do the demolition from it. if not, and this is not a quid pro quo again. there are four of the guys here. uh if not, what's going to happen is we're going to say okay. we got to hear from the dt dtsc. we have to hear from the guy who knows that in a heartbeat. we got to know the answer to this. we got to know the answer to that. and we waste another week. 2345 i don't know the schedule, so i don't know where we're going to put this on so we could wrap we already got affirmation. i believe from the

appellant that that would be okay. from the property owner you you now have. you could have the opportunity of wrapping this up tonight and doing no more than you're going to do except for formalizing it in in a nice little report that says, here's the evidence. here's the study and we're moving on, folks. so what do you think? i truthfully believe that we are doing what they're asking for anyway. and i think that it has been formalized by virtue of the same management plan. that's what i truly think. okay so if we were to, and i'm not saying we're going to do this, i obviously have a bias and i'm going to propose it. but if we tonight moved to that, too uh, what approved the appeal and issue the permit on the condition. that uh, the study be done to gather proper evidence in in consideration of the needs of the appellant. all right. are

you okay with that? if you're gonna do it anyway. i mean, i think, um, the challenges that there hasn't been a lot of definition around what they're looking for. i think it is one of those bottomless pits honestly. it is. it's a request without boundaries. i would be happy to if it was well defined and was not just another opportunity to cause future delays in cost for this project we have spent in inordinate amount of money on council being sued. on dtsc fees on our esteemed environmental consultants fees. and this project does not have higher incidents of pc. than others. i have another project in soma. that's using a vim system the same exact system. the same levels of pc was approved

reviewed by the applicable agencies who tonight shared that this site is not pose a risk to human health. and i am very confused as to why we are not listening to the agencies who are charged with protecting human health in our community. which which would be which would be a shared issue. okay um, there will be. that will be it. that would be a shared issue, but, well, we heard part of the public comments tonight. if you guys you know, you spent 45 minutes talking about the healthy trees. don't forget about human beings. i think that's the under. that's the underpinning of your issue. you have people that are living in a ah, you know, four or 5 10 blocks square block area who are scared to death to get just getting a little cancer right? and just getting a little death . and so i we kind of hear that , and we got to pay attention to that, anderson. i'm sympathetic to your your plate. i have real estate background. i know

exactly where you're going. and i have had these experiences, too. and i'm supported of what your company is done in in san francisco for housing. that being said just a little cancer . not so not such a good idea, and there has to be and there's been no definitive dtsc would have come here tonight with the guy who knows that the answer in a second and said, there's no problem here is the data. if the other guy who he has that data, but i can get it from him later would have been here tonight and deliver that data. i'd have no problem so supporting your position. but you're i don't think you're going to get that support from this body tonight because we don't have that data. the solution. is i believe is what i am proposing is that we give you we allow the permit to go forward with the condition that that is study. be completed and your own expert told us you're going to. we're going to

do everything anyway. so you know, i don't see any grievous harm or or any further duress on your part, although i understand from your point of view if i was sitting your position, decent, same thing. i yeah, we'll need to confer. um i think it is, um the question is, would you sign an agreement? they had no limit to it. they had no definition. would you agree to something that had infinite amounts of scope and cost. i'm sympathetic to that we're going to have a little discussion. you are going to finish your rebuttal and mr commissioner limburg is going to ask his question, then db. i is going to finish their rebuttal and then we're going to convene . and i promise you that i will raise this question to my fellow

commissioners and also to the appellant sitting there that says the same thing. you want to move forward. can you come up with a concise. bundle of what you want. done as far as the gathering of evidence. no, no, no. b s. i'm really trying to move this forward would go along way. um i'm not. this is what i'm gonna you know nothing about my sleeve. i'm not fundamentally opposed to, you know, a win win situation. um i want to make the point that we have applied for financing. this project is moving forward. if we encounter delays that could throw us into another round of financing the way that these funding cycles work. and the impact could be in the order of a $10 million loss in state tax credit equity. that's a state dollars that we're leveraging. and so i want to be very mindful of delay

tactics and we've we've been through this road for about 2.5 years now and so i know you're sympathetic to it. i just wanna, you know, make sure that this board is well aware of the impacts on the other side. what we could do is we can delay a decision tonight. this is not delay a decision tonight. wait for dtsc to show up via primary testifier. come back and say everything's clean as a whistle and then you know, according to sp 35, we have to give you your demolition permit that way. yeah what we have there is you're going to have cranky your neighbors number one. that doesn't matter. they're going to be back anyway. appealing your your next permit, and but you're gonna lose the time. anyway so i'm trying to accelerate the situation. possibly i appreciate it. i think i think we should. yeah, i think we should confer.

hmm excuse me, and i really appreciate the boards, you know, sensitivity and listening to the community and we have been to i want to point out that a lot of what you're looking for was stated. in our brief there was a response plan with a very extensive responsiveness summary that discusses the amount of sampling we've done, including on the miracle cleaners site. also dtsc has said in writing that the indoor air sampling conducted at the sixth residences north of the site. has resulted in a finding of no risk for habitation. including for vulnerable populations, so i'm not belittling the fact that pc is a potential carcinogen. i am just trying to reiterate points that have been made by experts about the incidents of pc at this state easier if dtsc would have shown up these

statements in writing, but not not arguing with you not arguing your point not argue that you have all the information already ready to present. i'm just trying to find resolution here, possibly if we can confer ourselves up here and moved towards resolution where, rather than causing you further delays . if we write on this side, say there, they got an agreement, if you'll deliver a you know a the evidence, protect the evidence for them and give them the evidence as part of your demolition process, that's all sounds fair to me. it also sounds like we can cut a few weeks off of your you can start demoing pretty soon end of february as your own, experts said. let's do it, so we'll see. thank you very much. i think commissioner limburg may completely disagree with me and blow it up, but we'll find out i'm actually quite aligned with you on this president's wig, i want to just kind of highlight

something that i heard your experts say, which was in the site. management plan there is, you know, basically if we're going to do the testing, and if we find something that is untoward or unusual, we will, you know, act appropriately, but what i what i heard when you said that was a lack of accountability to the very concerned and potentially very legitimately concerned neighbors. um and so i really do. you know, i was actually expecting the appellant asked to be much greater than it was and i consider they're asked to be quite modest in that they're allowed to have access to this this evidence. um, that maybe nothing, and it may be something. and that. accountability is what's i think lacking in what the plan you

have presented is there is no. you know, i'm not saying you would do this. but if you were, if you did want to cover up evidence of that there's no way anyone else would ever know, um , without some sort of plan in place. and. hmm and i do think it will go a long way with the neighbors. and you know it will go a long way with us, too. i certainly i can't speak for all of my fellow commissioners, but it certainly would go a long way for me. and if we were presented with, you know, we have to consider each appeal on its own merits. but you know if we are for me, at least, you know if the neighborhood association comes back with another appeal on the same issue, making the same arguments i would be less inclined to work with them on a on a on a mutually agreeable solution. um but i do think what they've asked here is quite modest and wouldn't really be of any additional cost to you. necessarily it's mostly just

sharing information. as far as i understand. um uh, on work that you say you're going to be doing anyway. um so you know, and i do it very much agree with president swings. comments as to the timeline issues here, because if we don't come to this agreement, and i would suggest that before we enter into deliberations, we give the parties a little bit of time to confer with each other if that's allowable. um but, uh, see if they can come to some sort of resolution that is can be presented to us. but if you know if that's not the case, i do think that the result will be a continuance of this matter until we can really get all of the information because the dt, you know, despite your illusions to the country, that dtsc did not give us all the information that we needed tonight to make a decision based on just the evidence on the record, so um or at least for me, so that's what i wanted to say. i guess there

wasn't really a question in their button. thank you, president swig. i don't want to get ahead of this, but just because the board is talking about the two options that that president swig mentioned. um just going harkening back to the beginning of the of the meeting the board. really, uh, just i want to remind you of the limited authority you have here and so that if you are, if you're inclined to impose a new condition, like the appellant's requested, uh, the board would need to find that it's a requirement that is imposed on project other projects that are not subject to s. p 35. and that should not just be a finding. that is stated, but finding with support in the record,

potentially from the city departments, um and if you can't make that finding you can't impose the condition that that's one piece that the second is just on the continuance. just to. i understand there's more information that that several of you are interested in receiving from dtsc, uh, when you're and maybe this is a conversation for later, but just wanted to note that the board should should be thinking about the timing of that continuance. how long we have a busy schedule coming up in the next couple of weeks. um but, uh, can continuance can't under sb 35 inhibit chill or preclude the project? so you may if you're gonna can consider a continuance, uh, inquire further with the project sponsor about the timing financing issues that were mentioned about the way yeah, um so. but let me have some you some questions about

that. uh well, we had was, uh in unsubstantial insubstantial testimony. from a key agency that could could give us the key evidence to that would, uh, that would generate a finding of this is a dangerous uh, dangerous situation for the public or not. they did not perform tonight. they did not have the answers that we needed. to reach an agreement. for me. that's that is super valid in reaching the reaching that level that we need to make a finding. alright that's that that is that is an that is an issue. uh and if we're the continuance piece, alright. the other piece is that if we were doing if we were having a hearing on a name. your

property doesn't matter. residential commercial retail hotel doesn't matter. and we discovered that there was a significant health issue. uh that that would be grounds for saying sorry. game over time out dtsc tonight in their lack of testimony and giving us what we needed to make a decision didn't allow didn't come to didn't provide. the data, the information that testimony that allowed us to get to that is a dangerous or not. well we don't think so, because and that's what we heard a lot. we heard it from health. we heard from dtsc. so you know, i i'm fully understand and agree with your point of view, and i'm sure that we can find a project if we ask planning or we sdvi where a where there was contamination

and therefore project it was stopped. and we can conjecture the same way that dtsc is conjecturing. we can continue. we can conjecture the same way that the health department's conjecturing that it to the fact that well, it just may be a contaminated site because they surely didn't tell us that it was an uncontaminated site. so you know we can. we can make that finding john. so i think we have a very good solution. that moves this forward where there is uh, yeah, i don't i ultimately, of course it is up to the board moves forward and there isn't dressed to the project developer and he gets his financing if we can. if we can get this done, i do not. i am not. i i'm not suggesting. outcome for the board here, and i'm not. i'm not suggesting that that the that that that there's

not a potential solution amicable. helpful solution as the parties have been discussing . i'm what i'm suggesting is that if the board wants to make add a condition that the that there will be additional soil, sampling that that condition must be based on a finding based on the record that non sp 35 demolition permits. are treated the same and subject to the same conditions. i think, given the db i is now about to give their rebuttal. a key question to db would be exactly that. can you give us an an example of a property where this has a has occurred for the protection of the health and welfare of the community? okay. you got that? mr agree? we're going to hear from the planning department first. anything further, mr teague? okay we'll hear from db. i thanks. with it. i have

something for mr teague. hey, thanks. i just wanted to clarify something. uh, based on when you were last up here, uh just clarifying that under sb 35. there isn't a pre clearance requirement for sequa. review. but sb 35 isn't. ah preventing, uh, secret claim in the future right? they could still get a private cause of action. yes. so . sb 35 in the sequel exemption, there is um, eligibility thresholds that have to be met.

so there are certain conditions where project isn't eligible for the sequel exemption. so things like, um, sensitive habitat and certain like flood zones and fault lines, you know areas of greater sensitivity where you are exempted from sacred review. um this project cleared all those thresholds. so they weren't there anything beyond that, from a legal perspective in terms of kind of secret claims that would be outside of my kind of understanding of the law. got it. thank you. thank you will not hear from db i or d ph. would you like to i guess you had a question for, um president swig you wanted to ask if this is the type of condition the db i would impose on a non as. let's go through the proper protocol. dph has something to say. that can thank you so much

for staying so late and then you can answer the question. uh i would say that, uh. in my time working at d ph for the past three years working on several 100 cases. we haven't imposed that type of condition. uh on a demolition permit, and we have approved demolition permits with similar contamination. ah if we were the lead case on a similar site, uh, we would hold up the site permit. for those types of environmental conditions if we want to, say more sampling we wouldn't hold up the demolition parent because our purview is the health department is only to review it. kerr dust control if it's over half an acre.

to repeat my question. i know you don't sir, but is the parameter that it has to be a demolition permit? where you provided these conditions? that's mr givner. because just a couple of couple of weeks ago you did, um, ask it 1 46 23rd avenue for both engineers to observe the work. that was an agreement between both parties. i'm not familiar with the specific demolition permit with this requirement. thank you, mr green. that would set the precedent. i think that's just thank you. there you go, john. here we have some questions. president swig are you done? got my question answered. commissioner eppler. we just we just had the question was answered, and we satisfied, mr governors question. sorry i was going to ask a question real fast. and, you know, maybe it's actually a question to mr teague

instead of you. unfortunately that i did not ask, but, um, i'm thinking, particularly in term of large project, others ations in the eastern neighborhoods, which are sites that while may not being mahrer, occasionally arm our sites, we get enhanced levels. environmental, um ah remediation sampling communication to neighbors as part of the large project authorizations. we get enhanced dust sampling. we get enhanced observation to ensure that there are no environmental pollutants leaking into the surrounding neighborhood. um, are you familiar with those sorts of conditions being put into the lps? i would defer to the other parties there. sorry. evening again. corey t playing department. um i'm not super familiar with what you're referencing. it could be a couple of things. i mean,

obviously, with the eastern neighborhoods there was a programmatically ir for the entire area that certain requirements that all projects that triggered certain requirements are going to be subject to. um and. that could be part of those requirements that were simply part of the programmatic ei are, um is that ? is that where you is because there were in addition to what was strictly mandated under law . and i'm thinking if i my memory serves me as its force you right now projects such as wonder harrow 16 and one mariposa at 13 0 1/16 street. uh we're all projects that had heightened environmental scrutiny above what was strictly required under the eastern neighborhoods plan. so that. in terms of heightened scrutiny. i mean, they all had to go through a sequel to write more but more ongoing maintenance as part of the demolition and construction of, you know, more reporting to the neighbors. more sampling.

right and then we're talking about in this case, sure, and so that would have been something that would have come about there would have been an improvement measure or mitigation measure through the sequel, review and determination. um again whether or not those came through. ah the programmatically ir for projects that triggered them, and there was a project that triggered it, or those were one off independent. environmental analyses that determine that these improvement measures were helpful and necessary. i wouldn't know i'd have to look at those, but but my understanding is that would be something that would come through the sequel analysis process. i think they were added at the commission is part of the lp approval. okay, so that your sandy's were one off conditions of approval for each project by the planning commission that that would be another option, potentially. okay. thank you. sure. thank you, commissioner. this matter submitted. so commissioners think. oh first of

all, i'd like to ask questions, please. um more questions. i'm sorry we are we having more questions or no, no, no, no, no, no, no. as far as deliberation if to start deliberations need to ask questions. sorry. um. ah! so you heard testimony from the permit holder about well, and it's a good question. uh how come would you enter into an agreement was just wing if you ever was if it was open ended in and non specific. we also heard testimony from mr green that said, we have we set a precedent where we had we required as as a condition of moving forward that , um, that experts from both sides in this case engineers work together during the during

the study process to mutual satisfaction to get their their job done. um 1st 1st question would be why, i guess it's to the gentleman who is providing the pro bono services. ah do you? do you have a uh, pre existing, uh, bullet point list of what your requirements are in the to preserve evidence and in as part of a study already embodied in the workplace. could you step to the microphone, please? sorry. the world has to hear you too. and while you're while you're detailing what you're answering that affirmatively, can you? can you detail that as much as you possibly can. if you leave out a couple bullet points, uh, we get the point. yes it's ah, the work plan that was implemented under dtsc oversight. at albright. cleaners across the street was an adequate. uh collection of evidence. a source area investigation. 66 locations in

the footprint of the former dry cleaners. multi depth five and 15 ft. soil and soil matrix. sampling for v o. c s. i mean, there's a it's there's a template for it. it's not open ended its very specific. that's what we need to see happen here to address the state of gap. okay, thank you, um who do i want to see from the other side ? that's that's gonna accept this. this is realistic and a potential so. a canceling my environmental consultants praises too much. he has informed me that this actually would take at least two months, including drilling permits. all the characterization analyzing excuse me samples. and that's before sending it to the dtsc. thank you can guess how quickly

they analyze things. so we are talking about potentially significant delays for the project with potentially significant cost impact, okay, but that it would he just described was closed. and then that was definitive. that was your major question it was and i would obviously need to see did you feel like that was pretty comprehensive. sorry, do you? do you feel like you've got a good sense of what was requested? yeah. i mean, i would really need to see dots on a map to understand the science based approach for why the samples are located where they are again. there's been a significant amount of investigation and so we would want to understand why the locations are where they are . and i'm you know, now i'm i'm i'm off. i'm in my danger zone because i don't know i haven't any clue what i'm talking about in this area. you guys as the experts i'm just trying to get resolution and well before now, the other the other part of your decision tree is that you heard mr givner, he said, i i'm

looking at the schedule here, and we're gonna this. you know if we have to delay decision as we're waiting for the aforementioned and, uh and not so loved dtsc tonight, uh, this maybe this continuance might be , uh, a long time as well, so, uh, and as one of my fellow commissioners said uh, you know , the neighborhood would love you a lot more. um if you threw them this olive branch and went through this process, so hmm. just saying you have a definitive study parameter. yes it takes more time that you would like, but if we continue this that would take more time than we would like all of us in this room, so you know, can we can we comfortably come to an to

an agreement tonight? uh to move forward to get your demolition permanent, with the condition that you that the two specialists work in conjunction which you each other, that is a precedent, which we have set as as something as mr greene said only recently, so we're in the spf 35 realm. and. or do you or we're gonna i know what we're gonna do. we're just gonna say okay, we'll wait until the dsc is dtsc is ready and everybody can come back at, uh, when we have time to hear this thing again. what do you think? i think as a project manager, i need to know what the schedule impact looks like. that's what i think because i don't want to sign on to something that jeopardizes the feasibility of 90 family affordable housing units in the sunset, which is, as you heard not developed, affordable housing for families historically, as i as i said, to the parnassus to the to the ucsf

people about six weeks ago when they didn't satisfy our needs necessarily on a tree. issue none of us on this panel. want to stop housing in san francisco . i mean, we're we're we know we're in a housing crisis, housing emergency and we know we need housing. none of us want to stop it at the same time, a little bit a little cancer. a little heart attack is not such a good thing, and we have to protect those those interests as well. so that's where we're torn. we we're on. we're on. the appellant side and we're on the permit holders side and we're just trying to figure out how we can move this thing forward and i'm sympathetic to the financing issue because financing is right now on the difficulty level. and how about a third option? yes, sir. what i understand is that this board did not find the dts es performance to be

satisfactory tonight. that would be an understatement. we also know that it is incumbent on this board to approve this demo permit. i would recommend that we move forward with approving the demo permit. in the meantime. we can set up the proper personnel from the dtsc to brief this board. will come back and do this all again when the state permit is issued, and at that point, which, as i understand, is really the more appropriate point to be delving into issues of this nature. you can ask all the questions of the qualified personnel that you would like. and i'm quite sure they will assuage you. because one thing that was unwavering. was does this site pose a human health risk? no. that was the answer. he didn't waver on that . there were some very technical questions, which, honestly, i can't really fault the guy for

not having in front of him at 10. pm as i as i said to him, he had his answers and his experts weren't weren't there weren't provided to us and we didn't identify them. uh fully as as a as a key witness with and ask him for all the answers. so you know there was there were there was president swig. one suggestion is we could continue this to march. 1st have a representative from dtsc available and prepared to address the board on all the questions and it additionally maybe the permanent holder can work with the appellant's see if they can come up with some kind of agreement if they can't find, but we'll know by march 1st and possibly, we would have it d t stone yeah. commissioners we'd have to make sure dtsc is available. the expert yeah, we now have three options. commissioners can can i stop talking so you guys can use your

much better brains and come up with suggestions. commission report. don't you start question to the project sponsor would continuance to march 1st put the project at risk. i believe it would, uh the reason i say believe, and not definitively is that our critical path is demolishing this building. then, um. upon demolition, which takes about three months. we need to perform a significant amount of underground utilities joint trench work. following that we're relying on pg any to make some connections. their schedule is inherently unpredictable. and therefore delaying it a couple and i just want to back up for a second. this permit was issued in mid november, so we're already in four months delay potentially due to this appeal. i would not. suggest continuing it from a, um, project risk

standpoint. i can't say definitively that it would you know, tank the project, but it would pose some risk that i would not like to understand. thank you. welcome. and we can continue conversations result my motion would be that we. peel initial deployment. for demolition on the condition that the two. specialist environmental specialists. work together to fashion to ensure that um, study . evidence is preserved during the demolition process that would be my on the basis. the public. open ended health

concerns. and you're talking about the specialist for the permit holder and the appellant just like we did in the in the case that mr what if they don't agree? then i get. we'll tell you how i see it. um and i have a feeling i might be standing alone on this one. but, um but i would deny. the appeal. i think , uh, you know, based on what we've heard. about our scope. before us based on the fact that we've heard from from dph. that you know, in similar situations. they haven't put these conditions in place. and i also heard from mr green that, uh,

the that any conditions that that you know, he could point to. where on on site permits not on demolition permits. um. it feels like an extra condition to me. that's not allowed by s p 35. that's how i see it. and i think you know, generally, i do think. but again, i might be alone, but but i haven't i haven't felt the same sense of frustration. at the agency's before us that i've sensed from other members of the of the board. um you know, i do think that the dph representative, for example, and apologies. i don't record your name, but but but he did say hey, look. you know you're referring to the state agency. but we're not concerned. and i heard, uh. you know a

couple of times from mr green that for this type of permanent, you know this they've gone through the proper measures. from dtsc. ah i heard two questions that i posed directly about is there reason to believe that there's a source here? no. are you concerned? based on that no. was every last question answered. to everybody's satisfaction. no. ah can you speak into the microphone? i'm sorry we had a request. but but but i was every last question of dtsc answered to everybody's satisfaction in a thorough manner. the answer to that is also no. but i think uh, from my perspective, those were questions about okay, i heard you say. that. that the risk is low and that you're not

concerned. tell me why. and i think the answer to that was well, the risk assessment guys, not here. and that person has. more detail on on why but i think if they if dtsc is making a categorical statement about. you know, informed by many projects. and then i think it's reasonable to take them. ah you know, on on the basis of you know their expertise in the area, and i know that we have uh, conflicting testimony. from the appellant's expert, and, you know, respect, you know the effort that has gone into you know, preparing those materials and certainly respect the input from the public in support of the appeal. um but i also think that you know, we have to look to you know? the agencies. that

are that are staffed in and composed of. you know, folks who are elected representatives. have trusted with with those responsibilities and designations. and that's d ph and dtsc. and so that's. that's that's where i see it. i think that the 35 does tie your hands considerably. and based on that very narrow scope. the. the proposal that's been floated. in my mind feels like an extra condition. that's uh, that runs counter to 35. all right. would you like me to

revoke and take away my motion? uh and float your motion, or should we investigate any support that might exist or not exist? on your point of view, mr chauvin or mr commissioner lindbergh. he, um thank you, um . first i'll say i would support your emotion. presidents wig. um second, i will say. and i'm not saying this to pat myself on the back, but i before this hearing , i made a request of miss rosenberg and mr governor to have dtsc present at this hearing because they were not actually a necessary party to this hearing tonight and uh and i thought that their testimony would be very valuable. and that's why i asked was because i thought, you know, there's this third party agency who seems to have all of the um, you know,

all of the answers and all of the responsibility in this matter, um and ultimately, as president, swing said, i don't think we got sufficient answers from them. um and if i hadn't asked, we may not have had them here at all tonight, and we would have had only the testimony from the city agencies, which was uniformly we don't know. we like kick this can down the road to the state agency, and we would have been continuing it anyway, because we wouldn't have had any useful information necessarily. um. from my point of view, i, you know. we heard significant testimony tonight and also received hundreds of pages of documents from the appellant's that was both compelling professional, um and thorough. and none of the other parties. we're able to poke holes in it

in from my point of view, and we um. you know, i asked the representative from ptsd. are these numbers accurate? and he said yes. um and i've heard the characterizations by the permit holder and by the city agencies and by the dtsc that no, this isn't dangerous. but the fact is the numbers that we've been presented with and that the dtsc agreed with our above the guidelines, and that to me is enough to consider this a public health safety hazard that warrants. overcoming the sp 35 preemption issue and warrant. um you know, finding is based on this record that just were not sufficient to give us the information we needed to say let's move ahead with this project, as is without any conditions and without any changes, and i, you know, i took

an oath when i when i entered this office to protect and serve the people of san francisco and i could not in good conscience vote for anything that did not provide some oversight over this project, considering the massive neighborhood response and the very compelling evidence that we have received and has not been counteracted, so i think i've made my position clear. thank you. ah mr josephina i for all the reasons uh, commissioner, landberg stated. i would support your motion as well. i believe it is appropriate and one of the things that i'm i am particularly concerned by your safety. and there have been other matters where ah i was in the dissenting minority on a matter because i felt public safety was not fully addressed.

and i think in this case we're talking about health. we were talking about safety. the 88 year old grand father in law of one of the people who who who submitted testimony lives across the street. the various neighbors are all affected by this, the residents will will be affected by this, so i don't think i given that i don't i don't i don't put enough stock in the government testimony here tonight. for the most part, it was one day agency deferring to another, and i would disagree. i think that i am very pleased that we asked commissioner member asked for the state agency to be here they are just they are very indispensable to this process. and if it's not in the work sharing agreement that if they're being deferred to buy our own book, city and county agencies then they should be considered as part of this process, and they should be here and they should be able to say, uh what? what the numbers mean.

that we've heard. we heard them say it's a low risk not no risk, but a low risk. and that low risk is undetermined, but its the numbers are higher than that what exists or higher than higher than the state levels? so i believe it is appropriate to take the steps outlined in your motion and i would support it. mr eppler. yeah this this cases is extraordinarily difficult, and it's made difficult by the overlay of the state law. and you know, i tried in my own, you know, very poor way to establish on the record and opportunity. uh, the finding that we have, uh, mandated enhanced environmental monitoring on sites where it was not required night. i'm not quite sure that i got there and that gives me pause because we are very limited in what we can do. i thank mr lambert forgetting dtsc

. here i am, uh, frustrated that while we could get qualitative data and information, it's like, oh, it's fine when we ask. okay, you know, tell me where the line is between fine and not fine. we couldn't get get a good answer there because we don't know how fine theoretically we actually are. um, that said, i have to look at two other things. one is . the risk exists, the risk has exists. the risk is independent of what's going on on the site right now. and then the question is, does that change of this permit and the demolition increase the risk? and if it does increase the risk is there any way that will know that and one. i the experts said that whether you know the risk that we have right now is fine or not, it will not increase as a result of the demolition permit. and while. i think that it is

fair to be frustrated with the agencies and not just this project, but in other projects throughout the city, where we have environmental issues, um not necessarily in terms of the outcome, but in terms of the process that's followed and the timing at which those outcomes are determined by the agencies. i have to give that a little bit of credence. the second question is, does the dust mitigation plan, and the plans that are in place. will that help catch any increased risk? and i think that we heard that it will and so is there a health issue here? yes there is a non zero health issue that currently exists. does the plan for the demolition increase that materially? i think the answer is no. i want to support

your idea. i don't think we made the finding that we can necessarily and that's where i'm leaning more towards commissioner lopez's position. despite. all my other desires because the state has taken my ability to find differently away from me. in this circumstance, perhaps. so you want to float, float my motion for a vote and see how we end up. and can you repeat the motion, please? did you and you basically wanted to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that would be revised to require that the two environmental specialist for the permit holder and the appellant's work together to ensure that the public is protected with with with a with a scope. because this was the concern of the permit holder with a scope as defined. by the

same testing and sampling that took place at 25 11 irving street. thank you very much. okay and on what basis is this motion made on the basis that the that there is a president for, uh, for doing this? ah ah and with with great concern of as with great concern, and for the protection of the, uh the neighborhood of the neighborhoods. personal health. okay? you do whatever you want. can um, suggesting additional findings on that hopefully to switch my fellow commissioners. i think the findings based on the record as mr governor, said the findings based on the record that non spf 35 permits would be treated the same. is that the correct standard okay? yes so the findings that i would based this motion off of is that were

any other projects that are presented with similar environmental concerns that have not been sufficiently addressed by the appropriate governmental agencies. we would end up finding the same on any other project. okay so that's the second basis. so on that motion , okay? like, uh, is this the soltis positive motion? if it if it. passes are we done and fails ? are we done? if it fails, we are not done. someone else can come up with another motion. if that doesn't pass, ultimately than the underlying determination permit will be upheld. as a matter of law. there can't be a consensus. thank you so on that motion, vice president lopez commissioner trasvina high mr lindbergh. russia grappler. okay. okay, so that motion

fails. do we have another motion on the table? okay without i have okay. um given that we are, um required to follow the state law. and the difficult condition we find ourselves in tonight is a result of the presentation from the state agency. that did not provide us the information that, uh that gives us a basis to go forward. i would move to continue this matter, uh, at a date to be set by president swig to have the state agency return with the prepared to answer the questions of that have come up tonight. okay i did get word from dt mr shaw that the particular risk assessor that who is the expert is not going

to be available on the next two dates, 22nd or march 1st, but he said he could try and get someone else and at the very least, try to commit to be better prepared. what about the director? that's really is there . mr shaw? would the director be available? i don't know if she is so available or is so is an expert. she would tended that one meeting. i actually would have to get back to you. i don't know if, um what her availability is okay? thank you . well, we know that the person can't be here that we need is not gonna be here. but as as you just discussed, so put it on the following day. i mean, that was the other. that was the other option that we were clear about. to the to the permit holder that, um it's either we resolve this issue by the failed motion or we continue it and which is

going to result in an unfortunate delay that can put the project at risk. uh i just want to make that clear again. so in case anybody wants to change their vote um president, president swig. i would support your motion, but i just wanna i just want to put it out there that if we do this on march the what? julie we'll march 15th, and we'd have to confirm dtsc was available there. mr shaw would the risk assessor be available on march 15th? are you still with us? hey i yeah, i'm so with you. i was looking at his calendar. his calendar shows he's available. um but i mean, i mean, he's fast asleep right now. so i mean, no check with him tomorrow morning. him now. no fast asleep. it's only quarter of midnight. president president say wait, we now have

we now have multiple levels of the state agency not being helpful. so with all due respect to the individual and the mr shah, who's been with us all night. i believe that is state agency can get has heard the hearing can watch the proceedings again and figure out the questions can figure out the answers and be well represented at an earlier date, then then waiting for this. person because it is unfair to the to the permit holders have to wait all that time. mr mr shaw. i would be very comfortable with mr shaw . um uh, delivering the messages on behalf of his agency. the issue with mr shots tonight isn't is not his expertise and his willingness to testify and forthright fashion. mr shaw's issue. is that the that the folks who have the information and who are the experts are not

him. so mr shaw can be consultative with his fellows at the dtsc get our questions answered based on your suggestion, and then we can do this on march 1st. mr shaw, how do you feel about that? that sounds, um, that sounds fair. i can be better prepared. and i'll go. i will be consultative with the people who do understand the matter. our our city attorney is about to throw water all over my suggestion. go ahead, mr gilbert. i hope not residents wig. i just considering the restriction in sp 35 that the decision, including a procedural decision can't inhibit or preclude the project. maybe the way to frame this continuance motion is to delegate to the president the authority to

schedule that continued meeting at the earliest date that dtsc is available and so that that president swig and the executive director can consult with dtsc. as soon as tomorrow. and maybe maybe you can get it on march 1st. maybe you can get it on the week before and what is our week before and when do we have our next? think mr shaw said he would be the representative and available exactly. so i mean, february 22nd. we have a very busy calendar. but if we can be efficient than we also have a budget that's about discussion that's also going to be loaded onto the next calendar as well. pardon budget discussion that's not going to happen tonight. it has to because we have to submit it by february 21st game. that goes against our alright, fine. i mean, we could try to squeeze it on the 22nd. but again, it's gonna be a long night. but i think what s p 35? hey when you're having fun, why not go for it? yeah. so let's just confirm mr shaw, would you be

available on february 22nd? yes, and prepared. yes i can be prepared, and i will also say that i'll uh, well, make the effort to make sure that if there is somebody else available to have them also uh, come that would be able to also answer the question. thank you. okay so do we have a motion? you said you wanted to continue it. so should we try for february 22nd? yes um , moved to continue this matter to the earliest possible date. i think we should specify for the record, so we don't february 22nd. i also want to specify that it is the earliest possible date indifference to ah, mr givner. okay thank you. so um and just confirming all the parties are available, assuming okay? so on that motion, vice president lopez commissioner

blumberg apple, er president swig. i'll vote iron and suggest also that they both the of the appellant. and the permit holder. use best efforts to follow our leads to resolve this issue so we can make it easy. okay, i. okay thank you. thank you, everyone for your patience now moving on to item number eight. thank you. everybody for staying so late and going through the this process and deeply appreciate it, especially the members of the public who hung in there for public comment . thank you very much. thank you . so we're on item number eight adoption. the budget discussion of possible adoption of the departmental budget for fiscal years. 24 25 so commissioners i'm not going to give a presentation. you've all had an opportunity to review it. did you have any questions? we will need a motion to adopt it and i

need to take public comment. if there's any could you gotta leave as quietly as possible, please, without any dialogue so that we can continue our hearing. thank you very much. yeah commissioners do does anybody we've all reviewed it. anybody have any questions? comments? conventional limburg. i guess i just wanted this is just a lack of understanding on my part. but when we have deficits like are being presented here, where does the were where does the money come from? when we okay. um first off, don't worry. uh yeah, you'll you'll be here you'll still have a job. i'm not worried about that. i know. i'm just kidding. but now, typically at the six month mark, um we just report what are projected revenue is and that often changes and some of our deficit

is attributed to exceeding our budget for city attorney fees. not john givner. not the wonderful john governor, but we do have pending litigation that may be resolved. so then we won't have those fees, maybe less. um if there is a shortfall that would be covered by the general fund. okay, alright. yes that was my question not to have that happen. that's why, uh, the when the comptroller's office determines what the surcharges are going to be there, the purposes cost recovery and they do their best. so. yeah i mean, the common common sense is everybody i think on this panel is involved in some level of business. you want your revenues to exceed your expenses, and it's in. it's problematic when you're approving a budget, which, uh, projects that you're not going to do that. um but the best guess of putting together

this budget is recent history. the most recent history is the last six months we've had the aberration of having a lawsuit. that is where the legal fees have been charged to this department, which is not a recurring issues. it's um it's all hopefully a one time situation. um and, uh, so that's unfortunate couple of years ago , yours truly suggested that certain vis not be reduced for the excuse that oh, we're running a surplus and had a surplus and in the wisdom of the administration decided they were going to reduce the peas and then what? what happened to surplus was eaten up and we go into into negative. it comes out of general fund anyway. um so, um and we can't predict how many people are going to make appeals. and at what level what

circumstance so it's a you know , it's not a negligent thing that we are doing. it's the best case. um projection that we're we're approving. hopefully tonight. um. one more question on as to the surcharges had noted, some of them went up for planning and be went up to significantly and others decreased as much the logic behind the comptroller's office does a surcharge analysis every april and they based the fees on the number of cases that are heard by the board. so okay in part so since debian planning have the most cases, they pay a higher percentage. or a higher fee. okay? alright, that makes sense. anybody want to make a motion to accept the recommendation for the budget and move it? i move that we

accept the recommendation for the budget and approve it. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any. so on that motion, vice president lopez commissioner trasvina lemberg president. swig motion carries 5 to 0 in the budgets adopted home now. yes, well, no, actually, we're done. yes we have. we know we you have to because you're the one who has the phone number. get person to let us in.

>> still a lot of people wonder since the trees have a lot of issues, why did we plant them in the first place? >> trees are widely planted in san francisco. with good reason. they are workhorses when it comes to urban forestry. we have begun to see our ficustrees are too big and dangerous in san francisco. we have a lot of tree failures with this species in particular. this is a perfect example of the challenges with the structure of the ficustrees. you can see four very large stems that are all coming from

the same main truck. you can see the two branches attached to one another at a really sharp angle. in between you can't it is a lot of strong wood. they are attached so sharply together. this is a much weaker union of a branch than if you had a wide angel. this is what it looks like after the fi c.u. resolution s limb l. >> we see decline. you can see the patches where there aren't any leaves at all. that is a sign the tree is in decline. the other big challenge is the root system of the tree are aggressive and can impact nearby utilities, and we can fix the sidewalk around the tree in many

cases. we don't want to cuts the roots too severely because we can destabilize the tree. >> in a city like san francisco our walks are not that wide. we have had to clear the branches away from the properties. most of the canopy is on the street side and that is heavyweight on those branches out over the street. that can be a factor in tree limb failures. a lot of people wonder since these trees have a lot of issues. why did we plant them in the first place? they provided the city with benefits for decades. they are big and provide storage for carbon which is important to fight climate change and they provide shade and really i think many people think they are a beautiful asset. >> when we identify trees like this for removal and people protest our decision, we really

understand where they are coming from. i got into this job because i love trees. it just breaks my heart to cut down trees, particularly if they are healthy and the issue is a structural flaw. i have also seen first hand what happens when we have failures. we have had a couple of injuries due to tree failures. that is something we can't live with either. it is a challenging situation. we hate to lose mature trees, but public safety has to always >> in november of 2016, california voters passed proposition 64. the adult use of marijuana act. san franciscans overwhelmingly approved it by nearly 75%. and the law went into effect in

january of 2018. [♪♪♪] >> under california's new law, adults age 21 and over can legally possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis and grow up to six plants at home. adults in california can legally give up to 1 ounce to other adults. >> in the state of california, we passed a law that said adult consumption is legal. if you are an adult and in possession of certain amounts, you will no longer be tried. you will not be arrested or prosecuted for that. that is changing the landscape dramatically. [♪♪♪] >> to legalization of cannabis could bring tremendous economic and social benefits to cities like san francisco. >> this industry is projected to reach $22 billion by the year

2020. and that is just a few years away. >> it can be a huge legal industry in california. i think very shortly, the actual growing of marijuana may become the biggest cash crop in the state and so you want that to be a legal tax paying cash crop, all the way down the line to a sales tax on the retail level. >> the california medical industry is a 3 billion-dollar industry last year. anticipating that multiplier as 20, 30, 50 times in the consumer marketplace once adult use is really in place, you could go ahead and apply that multiplier to revenue. it will be huge. >> when that underground economy becomes part of the regular tax paying employment economy of the bay area, it not only has a direct impact, that money has a ripple impact through the

economy as well. >> it is not just about retail. it is not just about the sensor. is about manufacturing pick a lot of innovative manufacturing is happening here in san francisco in addition to other parts of the state as well as the cultivation. we should be encouraging that. >> there is a vast array of jobs that are going to be available in the newly regulated cannabis industry. you can start at the top tier which a scientist working in testing labs. scientists working at extraction companies. and you work towards agricultural jobs. you have ones that will require less education and you look towards cannabis retail and see traditional retail jobs and you see general management jobs. those things that are similar to working at a bar restaurant or working at a retail store. >> we are offering, essentially, high paid manufacturing jobs. typical starting wage of 18-$20 an hour, almost no barrier to

entry, you do not need an education. >> that means that people who do not have college educations, working-class people, will have an opportunity to have a job at cultivating cannabis plants. there's a whole wide array of job opportunities from the seedling to the sale of the cannabis. [♪♪♪] >> last year, they said 26 million people came to san francisco. >> the tourism industry continues to be very robust here and the city and county of san francisco is about a billion-dollar industry. >> if we use a conservative cannabis user adoption rate to 15% that means 4 million tourists want that means 4 million tourists want to purchase cannabis. and we need to be ready for them. >> in 2015, as adult use legalization efforts gained momentum in california, the supervisors created the san francisco cannabis state legalization task force. this task force offered to research and advice to the supervisors, the mayor and other city departments.

>> we knew that adult use legalization was coming to the ballot and stat that would bring with it a number of decisions that the city would have to make about zoning and regulation and so forth. and i decided at that time, at a know it was a great, that rather than have a fire drill after the ballot measure passes, as suspected it would, we should plan an event. so i authored a task force to spend a year studying it and we made it a broad-based task force. >> we prepared ourselves by developing a health impact assessment and partnered that with key stakeholder discussions with washington, oregon, colorado, to really learn lessons from their experience rolling out both adult and medicinal cannabis. >> within days of the passing of the proposition, ed lee called

on agencies to act decisively. >> he issued an executive order asking the department of public health, along with planning and other city departments to think through an internal working group around what we needed to do to consider writing this law. >> we collectively, i would say that was representatives from g.s.a., as well as the mayor's office, met with a lot of departments to talk through what prop 64 and the implementation of prop 64 it meant to them. >> the mayor proposed an office of cannabis, a one-stop shop for permits allowing operators to grow and sell cannabis. >> he wanted a smart structure. he wanted a regulatory structure that ensured that kids didn't have access and community's were safe and that consumers were safe. and he wanted to ensure, more importantly, it was a regulatory structure that encouraged diversity and inclusivity.

>> this is an office that will be solely charged with a duty of wanting not only the policies that we create, implementing and enforcing them, but also executing the licenses that are needed. we're talking about 20 different licenses that will put us into compliance with what is happening on the state level. >> this is a highly, highly regulated industry now, at this point. we have anywhere from 7-10 departments that will be working with these industry participants as they go through the permitting process. that is a lot of work at a loss of coordination. we are creating a permitting process that is smart and is digital. it is much easier for the user and for community input, and is less mired in bureaucracy. >> for the first time ever in san francisco history, standalone licenses are available for all aspects of the nonretail side of the cannabis industry. now, a cultivator can go in to

the department of building inspection and to the department of health and say, with this first registered and temporary license, and then what will eventually be a permanent license, this is the project, this is what i am going to do. >> very rarely in city government do we interact with industries that are asking to be regulated. these guys want to be regulated. they want to be compliant. they want to work with the city. that is rare. >> san francisco has created a temporary licensing process so that the pre-existing operators here in san francisco can apply for a temporary state licensed. >> we have taken teams of up to 12 inspectors to inspect the facility twice a day. we have been doing that with the department of building inspection and the department of public health. and the fire department. >> it is really important for the industry to know that we are treating them like industry.

like manufacturing. like coworkers pick so that is the way we are approaching this from a health and safety and a consumer protection network. this is just the way practice happens with restaurants or manufacturing facilities. >> because there are so many pieces of industry that people haven't even thought about. there are different permits for each piece. you have to set up a permitting system for growing, for manufacturing, for testing. for delivery. for retail. you have to make sure that there is an appropriate health code. certainly the regulation of alcohol in terms of restaurants and retail it's probably a model for how this industry will be regulated as well, both on sale and consumption. >> it is completely uncharted territory. there is a blessing and a curse with that. it is exciting because we are on a new frontier, but it is very nerve-racking because there's a

lot at stake. and quite frankly, being san francisco, being the state of california, people are looking to us. >> we hope that cannabis does become more of an accepted part of society in the same way that alcohol is, the same way coffee is. >> it is a very innovative fear, particularly around manufacturing. san francisco could be an epicenter. >> san francisco can be a leader here. a global leader in the cannabis movement and set a bar just to other communities and cities and states and this nation how it is done. [♪♪♪]

>> # >> >> >> >> you are watching san francisco rising. >> hi, you are watching san francisco rising. reimagining our city. he's with us to talk about how our library's economic recover. mr. lambert, welcome to the show. >> thank you. i'm glad to be here. >> i know it's been difficult to have books going virtual. have we recovered? >> yes, we are on our way. our

staff stepped up big time during the pandemic to respond to the health emergency. since last may, we have been able to steadily increase in person access to library facilities. currently we are at 95% of our precovid hours of operation. in the coming weeks we are going to fully restore all of our hours. we have four branches that we are going to bring back to seven day service. they are currently operating at 5 days a week and we are going to go to every tag line and i know all the foot traffic has not returned to san francisco, but our library is seeing a resurgence coming back. >> can we talk about programs after covid? >> absolutely, that is part and parcel of our mission. we were doing that work precovid and

certainly the library stepped up during the pandemic. we doubled our level of programming for personal finance, small business help, jobs and careers. we have a dedicated small business center here at the library. there is a wide suite of programs that our librarian led. we have a financial planning day coming up in october and we have financial coaches that members of the community can come to the main library and take advantage of their expertise. >> i understand the mission is in the middle of a renovation. how is that going and are there other construction projects in the horizon? >> yes, we have major projects in the pipeline. the historic mission branch library, carnegie library over 100 years old and we are investing $25 million to restore that facility. we are going to restore the

original entrance on 24th street, the staircase from the lower level up to the grand reading room. we are going to push out on the orange alley side of the library and expand space for teens and children, we are going to create a robust community room, a multipurpose space. we are also investing $30 million in the chinatown branch, we are going to upgrade the mechanical systems to the highest level of filtration as we increasingly respond as cooling centers and air respite centers and open access to the roof. it has some unique views of chinatown to create the inspiring space it is. >> i believe you have programs for families that have free and low cost entries for museum and

zoos, is that correct? >> yes. it's a fabulous resource. go to our website. with your library cart, patrons, our residents can go to the public library and get passes to the museums, all of the incredible cultural institutions that we have in san francisco all for free with your library card. >> how are these great free services paid for? how is the library system funded? >> we are so fortunate in san francisco. we are funded for by the library fund and those that taxed themselves just for library services. we also get a dedicated portion of the general fund. that together allows us to be one of the most well supported libraries in the nation.

we have the third most library outlets per square mile of any municipality. all of our branch libraries have professionally trained librarians on-site. service that we are able to provide, the collection, we are a leading library in our country. >> that lead know ask about your biggest annual event in the city. how does the event work and what's happening this year? >> we are excited for this year's one city one book. this is our signature annual literature event. we have everybody in the community reading the same book. this year's title is "this is your hustle" named after the pulitzer prize nominated and pod taste.

this is about the population. one nice thing about this selection is that they are both local. we are going to have several weeks of programming, kicking off next month. it will culminate here in the auditorium november 3rd. so our library patrons will get to meet the authors, hear from them directly, and one other important aspect about this year's selection, we have our own jail and reentry services department. recently the foundation awarded the san francisco public library $2 million to work with the american library association to shine a light on our best practices here in san francisco, and really help our peers in the industry learn how they can replicate the service model that we are doing here in san francisco. >> that's great. well, thank you so much. i really appreciate you coming on the show, mr. lambert. thank you

very much for your time. >> thank you, chris. that's it for this episode, we will be back shortly. you are watching san francisco rising. thanks for watching.

>> okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, february ninth. we had things move around. at the last minute. to enable public participation sfgovtv is streaming live and will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. athi