>> good aong and welcome to the february 8, 2023 san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will be the president and joined by vice president jose lopez and commissioner epler, and also present is deputy attorney who will provide the board with any needed advise. at the control is i'm julie board's executive director. we will also be joined by representative from the city department that will be presenting, the zoning administrator, matthew green, chief building inspect or with the department of building inspection and chris buck,

urban forester, veronica program manager for the site mitigation program. environmental health branch and ryan casey, caseworker with the dph site mitigation program. the board meeting guidelines are as follows, so they do not disturb the proceedings, no eating or drinking in the hearing room. respondents are giving 6 minutes. people must include their comments within these 7 or 10 minutes. time may be limited to two minutes of the agenda long or if there are a large number of speakers. mr. langley our assistant speaker will give you a leeway. four votes are needed to grant an appeal or determination. if you have a question about asking a rehearing, please email board staff.

now public access and participation are paramount of importance to the board. sfgov is live streaming this live. sfgov tf v is also providing close captioning of this meeting. to watch, go to cable channel 78, please know that it will be rebroadcast on monday, february 26th. now public comment can be provided in three ways, one in-person, two via zoom, click on the zoom link of our website. and then or three by telephone. 1669----and again sf gov. tv is broadcast anding streamlining the phone number and access information across the bottom of the screen. to block your phone number, star-67 and then the phone

number, listen to the public portion and dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will have two or three minutes depending on the length of the agenda and volume of speakers. our legal assistance will provide you with a verbal warning. please note that there is a delay between the live and on tv. therefore it's very important that people calling reduce otherwise there is interference with the meeting. if any of the participants need the disability accommodation, you can make a request, the board's legal assistance or send an he mall to board of appeals at sf gov.org. please note that we'll take public comment first from the members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm

all those who want to testimony. any member is able to speak. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirm. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> yes. >> thank you, if you're a participant and not speaking, please put your on mute. now we do have a long agenda. do you want to limit it to two minutes. >> yes, two minutes. >> this is general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone that would like to speak on a matter that is not on tonight's calendar. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar? please raise your hand. i see one hand raised.

okay, that hand is down. there is no public comment. commissioners, comments? i would like to say, we cannot see it on sf gov. tv but we have a full house tonight, the most attendees i've seen since 2009. i'm glad that is healthy and back, thank you for coming tonight. >> okay, is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay we'll move on to item number 3. minutes of february 1, 2023 meeting and note commissioner lindbergh reached out to me regarding item 5, at 737 bueno vista and thought we should put the last name by the applicant. he would like to add that and i

agree with him. so we would need a motion to adopt as amended. >> motion commissioners? >> i move to adopt with the suggestion from commissioner lindbergh. >> thank you, is there any public comment on that motion? please raise your hand? i don't see any. on that motion, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries and the minutes are adopted as amended. we're now moving on to item number 4, appeal 2920, subject property 244 hartford street. to margaret of alteration permit.

permit 1-22, note on february first the board voted 5-0 so they can have revised plans. since we asked the permit holder to revise the plans, we will hear from them first, and i believe mr. tom tuny is here. welcome, you have three minutes mr. tuny. thank you. tom, on behalf of the perm pit holder. we believe we have addressed the concerns with the permit and have submitted revised drawings, revised calculations, my understanding is that the engineers both agree that these are adequate and that dbi agrees is ready to approve.

so for us procedurealy, and our request is that they permitted. i understand from previous hearings that would be granting ftd appeal and approval of special permits. that's our official requests if there are any other concerns that come up from the appellant or the board we're available for any questions, you may have. i'm here in person, but ms. kashibi and and our engineer are available by video conference. >> okay, thank you. i don't see any questions, we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, i'm math

regreen representing the department of building inspection. just to remind the permit is a revision to a previously approved permit, to improve the third floor. last week, i was to recommend--you asked continuance to let the engineers come into agreement. per the request, engineer is here if you have any questions. i'm available for any questions, so a carol lee ang. >> i don't see any questions. president swig.

>> can i get ms. lee ang, just as a formality. and just to justify your being here. and approved the recommendations that is being made toronto. >> good evening, everyone. yes i'm the engineer and i reviewed, the revised that is prepared by mr. bird, the engineer of the permit holder. and i, and the join and address the concern about removing the share wall of the 1985 permit. >> so everything is okay for you. >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, we will now hear from the appellants and welcome.

>> good evening, commissioners, an degree for the appellants. mr. tuny was right that they did submit revised permits and he's correct that it did address our engineer structural issues with the previous permits, there is just one or two sort of outstanding issues that warrant us kicking this over for an additional two weeks. one is revisions include work that is being done in the common area of the building, including work that is done right up to and touching my client's unit. since this is the common area of an hoa, the proper permit holder oa and not permit holder maggie in this case. and the second issue is with the revised perm uts is according to our engineer who is here via tele conference, there is a more than 50% chance

that the revisions as they're currently drawn while he's okay with them structurally, will likely cause damage to my client's unit which will necessitate a repair my client's are okay with that because they need to come to a permit in the next couple of weeks ho workout how the repair is going to be made. the hoa needs to vote on the revisions. and the property permit holder needs to be on the permit and i'm available as is mr. stranbergh. >> thank you, we have presidents from president swig and commissioner lemberg. >> my question is whether or not the permit should be issued, so i'll differ to commissioner lemberg. >> thank you, president swig. my question is, you mentioned a

50% figure of chance of damage to your client's unit, can you elaborate what the risk is? >> i would differ to our engineer mr. stranbergh it's been told to me it may have damage but i would not have the expertise and i don't know if he's available. >> yeah, i'm here, i don't know if i can be heard. >> yes, we can hear you. >> speaker: yes, i don't know that there is any percentage at-risk that could be put on that, but effectively, there is beams framing that is being installed in the floor that is snug tight to the jipson board, so i would guess that there is minor cracking or tearing of some drywall joints.

nothing that can't be mutted or sanded, i want today prepare the client to address that. similarly at the wall siding is being removed and hardware being installed in the exterior calls. you can also get some damage of the drywall in that location, just recommend that they workout what happens in the event that there is cracking in the drywall. >> okay, thank you. we have--do you have a further question. >> i have a further question. so in addition, i think this is more for mr. cadral, i understand that there would be needs to be an additional permit drawn by the hoa, i definitely understand that concept but how does that in your opinion apply to the permit that is in front of us today, which is the work that

needs to be done on the permit holder's property? am i incorrect in thinking that there needs to be an additional permit drawn on the commons area? but the property is still valid and still needs to be done? >> well the permit and revision that's are currently before the board, include work that is on h.o.a. property and needs to have the correct building owner as the permit holder. so there is, it couldn't be an additional permit, it's at issue permit. >> okay. but i mean, it is a private issue, okay. okay. i don't know if we have the jurisdiction to be able to

increase the scope of it to include common area properties. >> i think it's going to take about two weeks to do so when we need to have an h.o.a. meeting and vote, likely we have to have an agreement where we can figure out how this work is going to be completed and repaired. so i would ask that this be put over two weeks. >> okay, thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner tresvina as well. >> are they from the revision or underlying work? >> there is, was work being done in some of the h.o.a.

walls, upstairs in the permit holders unit. but with the original permit as i understand it, it involves further work in the hoa common area to put the walls down on the level of the appellant 's unit and touching the wall. >> well if it relates to the underline permit as opposed to the revisions which were created as our extension our continuance, why didn't we hear about it before? >> there is instruction that's were not included with the revision sxz extent where they

go into hoa property, the appellants have an issue. >> and is it the hoa more than thank you >> so two member hoa. >> so the answer is yes? >> just the two owners. >> so we got you both here. >> yeah. >> why would we need to delay this for the two of agree or don't. >> because there is some certain safeguards in terms of giving their approval they would like to see certain safeguards including the damage that we think is likely caused by the work done that there is some agreement that the permit holder pays for it. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. is there any public comment on

this item? please raise your hand. i see one hand raised, anne cer van tez, are you here to comment on the item. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. anne go ahead. >> speaker: yes. >> yes, i can hear you. >> speaker: it's not for this item, sorry. >> okay, please put your hand down. thank you. is there any public comment for this item, please raise your hand? okay, i don't see any public comment, so commissioners this matter is submitted. >> so i would like to ask dbi a technical question. and then i would like the city attorney or maybe sdbi a further questions.

so in whose name is this? does it matter? >> no the dispute between the report owners is hoa it's not under the building code. >> and therefore it's a civil matter, it's not under our jurisdiction of the deflect over to the city attorney for confirmation of that statement? >> i agree with mr. green. >> thank you, so it does not matter what name the permit is under and this we're getting into civil world which is we're here to talk about, the integrity of this permit. thank you for that clarification. any commissioners have any further comment or anybody want to make a motion? >> i'll make a motion that we, what are we doing? we're upholding the po and

granting the permit, the special conditions permit. >> you'll be granting po, and revised require adoption of revised plans and revised calculations and demo calculations are dated to february 7th. >> once again, you read my mind. >> okay, and on what basis are you make thising motion? >> in that the, that the permit. >> i'm sorry? >> the permit has been certified and approved by dbi. >> okay, so on that motion from president swig vice president ropes. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner epler. >> aye. >> that passes 5-0 and that concludes this matter. next we move to san francisco

public works. bureau of urban forestry. and to continue this item to february 8, 2023 so that ucsf can collaborate on a tree replacement. and on the matter, vice president lopez? i thought you were going to say that part. given that my wife is employed

by ucsf as a pediatrician and interest in ucsf there is a potential of conflict because of that, so i'm going to recuse myself on this calendar. >> thank you, we'll call you back when this is over. and we also have a disclosure from commissioner eppler. >> yes, i've serve the ucsf community group and a grant agreement with the university, i had discussed with the city attorney and it's been determined that i have no conflict on this issue. >> thank you, so when we last met we asked for a replacement plant so we'll hear from ucsf first. so mr. olson is representing ucsf. welcome, you have three minutes.

>> good evening, i'm a mi aldson ucsf director of state and government relations. when we were before you at the prior hearing, we heard you very clearly that you asked to us go back and work with the city on a plan to increase the number of trees that we would plant to replace the 28 that we're removing in order to build a new hospital. and we're pleased to report that we have reached an agreement with the city to do exactly what you have asked. for the 28 trees that we are going to remove, we plan to plant 56 on city property and provide the city in lieu fee so that the city can plant agrees where the city finds the greatest need and this is for a total of 161 trees for the 28 that we are removing, it's a replacement value of almost 6-1.

this will allow ucsf to be responsive to our neighborhoods and we work in a community and ask them what they want replaced as well as working collaboratively with the city to increase the canopy city wide. we really appreciate dpw working with us on this. i just want to conclude by saying as you know very well, ucsf is not a private develop we are a public mission, we're building a hospital for the benefit of the public. the trees that we're planting are on top of the m.o. u that we reach with the city in 2021 under which we have made a significant commitment to greening the city. we have made a commitment to preserve all 61 years of the mount sutro reserve and the trails that go with it. we also have a park to peek

trail so. we're very pleased to have made this additional commitment to the city and i'm pleased to turn the rest of my time to charles olson to provide additional details. thank you very much for discussing the agreement that we made with the city for more trees. >> i'll be very brief. we did do what you asked us to do. the number of trees that will be replaced as well as cost, the university also agreed to accept the city's appraisal of the trees although they differ drastically. so if the commission has any questions about how we reach

these points, i'm here to speak about the commitments that the department made. >> thank you, that's time. >> thank you. >> okay, we have a few questions, president swig and then commissioner trasvina. >> in this time, would i like to take the initiative to thank you for us. thank you for upholding your agreement with the public for their trust because you, because ucsf is a health and wellness organization, therefore protecting the health and wellness of san francisco citizens and by your act to be as flexible as you've been, to listen to us and plant for trees and fund for trees for me this is what makes ucsf a great institution. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i join to join president swig in his praise of your being responsive to the past hearing that we had and it's obviously you went to took and took these views under consideration, i appreciate it. i have a couple of questions, you described this as an agreement to more trees. is it your understanding that in lieu fee will pay for more trees or the city's commitment to have trees? >> so let me respond to that and i think commissioner, the city as well as, emails this afternoon talking about how the city would implement the in lieu fee. which is only a portion. the aoufrl had been working on the community, that they would something else. so trees could be planted

elsewhere in the city where there is a real need. and to that would be handled by dpw. which mr. buck can speak to, it could be more than 10 or less, based on the contract ultimately issued. it's very important for ucsf in making this contribution to the city that those trees be planted and that the, that was very important to the appellant and very important to the university. all told on city property and at the site where the project will be developed about 206 additional trees that will be planted.

again, that's 52 more of city's calculation of 806 and also a greater monetary contribution. and i think what the city suggests in their email today, is that they can put their plan for how to plant the trees and make sure that they're planted into the conditions of the permit that would be issued, does that answer your question? >> it elaborates on the trees that you have control over, is it going to be ob on your campus and committed to having them in the neighborhood. i guess my perhaps my question is better addressed to the city whether the city will have 105 more trees or just pay for 105 the city was already planning. i'll address that to the city at the appropriate time. the other question i had related to one of the documents that you submitted, it was a chapter 8 in, it talks about the university ice right to

cancel and not award the contract of a nonprofit organization to plant and implement this part of the order, this part of the plan. and i'm wondering, what if, what are the accountability mechanisms, i know there is reporting mechanisms. what requirement right s are there for the trees to be planted. >> a couple of things, you're talking about the rfp for the 41 trees that will be planted. that rfp are out on the street. the bids are due friday. the university has four nonprofit of expresses interest going after the contract, we will not know until friday. if we're any reason, which we don't anticipate will happen, but for any reason, there was not a bitter under that rfp the

university's intent that they can sole source the contract and enter into contract to plant the trees. the rfp has a start day of may. and those trees will be planted this year. and the reporting mechanism needs to report back to ucsf. ucsf and the city entered into a m.o. u with respect to the work at parnal sis. that also requires periodic reporting related to this plan. so the city will get reporting under the mou, the university will be getting quarterly reports from the entity that accepts the contract and doing the work. and the back up plan is the university will sole source the contract. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner lemberg.

>> thank you, i want to thank you for the significant amount of work that went into this. i was fairly aggressive on my stance in the original hearing and i admit to being impressed with this new plan. i do want to ask because i studied cartgraphy in college. some valley and golden gate park, that implies for me by looking at them that the trees that we're talking about will be planted along the trees? is that correct? that the reading or are these potential areas where the trees can be planted? >> my clients are here, there were four areas or l.a., to

look at sites that were viable. the one na is that has been chosen as most popular was covered in the papers that we committed. i believe the final decision will be made as final the community property rfp and one of those four locations will be the site of the 42 trees that will be planted. theoretical areas of planting. the one chosen via the rfp process. the connection that was in the plan was the one selected

after, the university surveys community members. it does not mean that trees would not be planted through but they're not part of this rfp process in the plan. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thank you. i don't see any further questions. we will now hear from the appellant, mr. cliff, welcome you have three minutes. >> sorry, are you going to hear from public works here? >> i'm sorry, yes. mr. buck? urban forestry, we hear from the applicant and appellant and then we come in to kind of, debrief about what we've done. kind of going back to where we left off, we were looking

during the appraised value of the individual 28 trees. and that appraised value came out to, i believe it was 468,000. we entered into a bit of a review period with ucsf involving mr. klipp in that process. there was a agreement about how to count up multiple stems, not a disagreement but overlook on our part. we reduced to 371,271. the ucsf, counter appraisal, counter is a little aggressive but they did their diligence and hired somebody who is an expert in tree appraisal and in the field nr that, jim clark

provides training to those learning how to do appraisal. that appraisal was 150k. so we had quite a golf, i will say that, ucsf said we will just accept that. we're not here to keep debating. they could have said, do we split the difference. i want to report back on. and also some bumps along the way early on, we had terrible storms and i also was a little late in reaching out to our director interim director and legal advise. and i do apologize to the appellant for that rough start but i was convinced we can pull it off by this date. and also to provide some additional feedback, when we do the appraisal of the trees, we also, determine that we couldn't do we can do replacement value for trees

replaced onsite but not for the delta of the additional trees. along story short a lot of meetings and--feedback, essentially, the ucsf revised plan is providing for i believe, it's 52 additional trees beyond what the revised appraisal is. so they're accepting 200,000 a phrase al difference. and our ultimate requirement through this process is about 52 trees shorter than what is proposed. public works. >> thank you, that's time. >> i can answer questions about the contract doing follow-up. >> thank you, questions from president swig and commissioner trasvina? >> you affirm that's okay with

the dpw and accept the---- ~>> kress. >> and asking the same question on the tesla issue, what is your assurance, not you, dpw, what is this, assurance and how this going to hold you accountable for planting those trees which are now funded in the, in the places that you highlighted which were hunters and the other neighborhoods as rirl? >>--i recall. >> correct, i hear your feedback. we have several steps on how we carry out situations. i'm sensitive that i hear that feedback. we are a budget at public works

of 19 million dollars, give or take and we have to be responsible with how that money is used. beginning from the top down, that's going to be our approach in general. we're public agency, share information committed to urban forestry and following through on the conditions. conditions that are both from the board of appeals and also on public works letter head. these are conditions issued by public works that we're holding to. so tuz not reflect well on both board of appeals or public works if and when we do fall short. assurance, so we will definitely publicize progress. i've proposed perhaps on our website, we highlight this as if, it was the works the project are highlighted. some of the feedback, i received just in the last several days is about, how long it would take a contract out to bid, and get going, get bids on

that and i provide some information to both ucsf and mr. klipp on that. we also want to deliver for ucsf, mr. klipp specifically but ucsf. there are a number of folks we need to deliver for. i know i said this before, it's to tao* public and too visible to fail. that is one reason why we're looking at issuing a stand a bone contract specifically for the planting of 105 trees. that's the goal that the bids come in where we can go beyond that. those are those are just a number of specific things that come to find in terms of

accountability but again, we need to be accountable in everything we do. >> let me interrupt you. >> because you're rambling for me and i get lost in the ramble. >> sure. >> i want to know, how many trees is, how many trees is that supplemental settlement number going to buy beyond those which are, which are replacement trees have identified been identified as replacement trees? around the par nal sis heights neighborhood and how many trees are going to be purchased and where are they going to go and how is the board appeals going to be reported accountability by your department? >> sure, ucsf is commit today

14 trees onsite, 656 is part of the plan. those attachment that show a few different corridors are some of the options. >> [talk being at the same time] >> give me a break, simple question, you have over 200,000 that you have to buy trees for the bay view and other neighbors based on your own direction last time. how many trees are going to be planted there with that odd $200,000? when are they going to be planted? and when is this body going to do that you've done your job? >> it will be done within three paelz from the board of appeals decision. the contract will be entered within 18 months of the board of appeals's decision. the goal is 105 street trees in those areas identified by the

urban forest plant that are well documented. the park is only 50% of those trees is what was going to be required through our code. >> that answers my question and i appreciate the clarity about that. this allows the public to understand what you're planning, when you're planting them and when they should be looking for those trees to be planted so they don't come back six months from or nine months saying, where are they the trees. they're going to come back in three years and they don't have to ask the questions. that's why i'm pressing you, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. tres--trasvina. >> i have related question. if it's approved, will additional trees.

>> it is 105, the proposal it's 105 additional trees based on the requirement of appraisal and/or code, we're requiring in the 50s. so ucsf added 47% additional trees to what the code, based on our closer analysis of it with the council. >> unfortunately that does not answer my questions. what i'm trying to get at is,

let's say you're at university and getting money for your buildings. somebody comes along with an extra million dollars, in this case, extra 240,000, is this for more city trees? or is this for the city that the city was planning to have anyway? it's a question of how in lieu system works, not the in particular what uucsf is doing. they're playing 240 no matter what. >> so that 242 will fund trees that we don't have funds to plant trees. we don't have that fund to go plant 105 trees, they're going to pay us our money.

perhaps i should handout on excel sheets on what our numbers are or ucsf can come down. 240k is what we were not going to receive back in december. >> 105 trees that were not planted and now can be planted, is that correct? sorry for trying? >> i'm hearing that as a possibility, i'm also hearing that over the next three years, the city may need to save some money and they may say, well you've got 24 2000 for ucsf, that's 242 that does not have to come from someplace else.

that could be, i'm not saying one is better than the other. they can expect the same number of treeses. but now ucsf is coming to the rescue. it's either a tree or budget issue. >> thank you, commissioner and probably make iting too complicated than it needs to be. so to answer the question, the 24 2000 that would be paid to the city of san francisco would be received as in lieu fees that fund would then fund a contract for 24 2000. those funs cannot be used for any other purposes other than

satisfying the permit condition with ucsf. and they can carry that out as a condition of the permit that is granted. >> we have a long agenda tonight, i think this question for me will come back in later meetings. thank you, thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. gibbner. >> thank you, president swig. just a couple of clarifications. i understand that bob has a plan how they're going to use the funds. the board of appeals can't add that because the board can direct on where to plant those trees.

although you cannot add that as a condition, you can make a motion to report back on progress on those plantings say at the two; one or three year period. or whatever time period you prefer. regarding your question, commissioner trasvina, they set the budget for dpw each year. there is no guarantee that that budget will increase or decrease in any year over the tree. dh money is targeted, he can't commit now nor can this board direct that the budget in future years will stay stable

or go up. >> thank you. we will now hear from the appellant. >> thank you. i'm thankful that they covered a grace of 8 weeks. we should not be congratulating because after two months of work, what we is what public works should have continued their permit on in the first place. it just feels because of the remarkable amount of tree loss in this location. this was guided by constraint and not vision. it's nothing more than the value by the code. still results in a loss of tree con opey.

we had no meetings and no a phrase al and it was not because i was not asking. four weeks ago, i saw a continuance because i didn't know if anything was happening. in response, public works called me under handed and, appraisal was complete and two city attorney had interrupted the code. but nothing was coded. public works is treating exceptional by writinger the replacement value. this is not exceptional, it is the law. under scores. on top of this, i paced i recently learned that forced to vote, i honestly, don't know how to do my job when it comes to working with john klipp

anymore. public works would have walked away from a quarter of a million dollars in planting money. i'm here speaking for the trees and ecosystem and people too intimidated. and tonight i'm a very exhausted member of the public. i request that you seek public engagement as support for what you need to do. to ucsf you've reminded that this hospital is going to safe lives. i saw a program where they said how do you treat a tree with respect, you treat it as you would treat yourself. i ask that thank you demonstrate whier leadership. and to the board, i request that this plan be adopted and that the implementation plan be

a plan in whatever way possible regarding the use of in lieu fees. thank you. >> thank you, we have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> i want to thank you for your extraordinary service. in the more resent weeks, you mentioned that in the four resent weeks, there was no, no communication and mr. buck acknowledged that as well. i want to hear your perspective on what has happened in resent weeks and check in with you to make sure that you're really on board with this results and you've been resulted and collaborated with in this process that lead to this

revised plan. >> everybody knows that i'm a innovative thinker, this was collaborative by definition only, i was in the meeting but it was more of a discussion between ucsf and the city regarding the code and interpretation of the code and also the valuation of the trees and how that would ultimately be parsed out. so i was part of it but i would not define this as a outstanding result, i would define this as a result by the law. to that extent i support it mostly because i'm tired. >> understood, thank you. >> okay, thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> i'll be previous and i'll ask you mr. klipp, the same question i've asked the other

speakers. from december to now, do you expect to see 105 more trees in san francisco? or do you do you see this as agreement. >> this afternoon ms. buck did send out an email to project manager and myself that i thought was detailed planned forward and i was hoping to hear him outline for you tonight. in terms of how the contract would go out and the timeline and, you know, estimate a number of trees give or take 1 or 5 more or less whatever, so i guess i was hoping to hear more about that tonight.

>> my search for an answer, i'll wait for another proceeding. >> thank you. >> we're now moving on to public comment. if you're here to provide public comment, please raise your hand. anyone in the room? okay, on zoom, i see one hand. phone number ending in 1557, you have two minutes. please go ahead. >> speaker: can you hear me? >> yes, >> speaker: good evening, i'm carol i live in the sunset neighborhood and i also retired staff from ucsf, i'm calling to and concept. i think it's been a long time member of the neighborhood and i think my feeling is that, well in work withing the neighbors to address the community. and i think they worked for past two or three years on this tree on this tree.

project so i do think that, i'm in support of it and they need to focus on the community and the board of appeals. i do think that current 24 2000 is a generous commitment for the trees to support what the gentleman said that said how critical the canopy is. i urge the board of appeals to approve and approve the proposal. and i think the monitoring in the next two to three years is a good point. versus. thank you very much for taking my comment. >> thank you, andrea j, please go ahead.

>> speaker: i'm andrea and i'm a member of inner sunset members and member of the public, obviously, and i'm here to voice my support for ucsf tree sunset. impact of the new hospital built. i was not plan to go say this tonight, commissioner lemberg's question about the maps, presents a head scratcher for me, like most members of the neighborhood we assume when ucsf went out and asked us where we would like these trees to be, the last day the options 1, , 3 and 4, we assumed that's where the trees would be planted and now listening to the conversation, that may not be where they get planted. and i would caution ucsf, when you make commitments to the public, they believe the trees

will appear in those areas and if they don't, that's a breech of faith that's not where you all want to go. nonetheless, i support this project and i hope the board of appeals approves as. thank you so much. the third part is the tree to neighborhood or some other neighborhood in san francisco with that contract. so there is three parts to this decision that is being done today and people have to clarify that there are three different parts.

so my only question is that specific to the last one and second one, because we have no jurisdiction over the first one where, exactly ucsf property the first part. second part if i have a concern about the neighborhood where it's going fob planted. and the third part where the trail or some other neighborhood five additional trees will be planted. i want accountability on part number 2 and 3 especially since they are within the boundaries of the city. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, michael nolte. >> speaker: yes, my understanding is that the city does not have a lot of money to plant trees to begin with. people in the community for years now have been trying to

get the city to step up and plant trees city wide. we've gone through a bunch of storms since, since the bureau has been implemented, we watched our canopy, reach a couple thousand per year. we're in a deficit and we're not catching up to what we need. i thank you ucsf for trying to do their part but they could have done better in this process. and i think they kind, they want to pony up as much as they could have. but i was not part of the negotiation but it seems like we got something, but it could have been better. and i'm a little disappointed. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further public comment?

please raise your hand? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, anybody want to layoff mr. trasvino, do you want start? >> thank you, president swig. i appreciate the testimony from the parties to this and the city as well as the members of the public, it's all very enlightening and instructive. i will support support the agreement that the parties have come to. >> i wonder to commissioner trasvina's idea regarding checking on the timeline that mr. buck told us which is 3 years.

with the issuance of revised plan with additional continue that we do a check in in february of 2026 to see what the status. >> that can only be a recommendation. >> mr. gibbner says it's a recommendation not a condition. >> i would include that not in the permit revision but as an additional request outside of the permit. >> okay, pardon me for only hearing whaf of what you said. that we revisit this in february of 2026 but other than that i'm in support. >> is appreciate the outcome. i appreciate the department of public works fighting for a better outcome than what was originally giving to them on the table. i didn't have a question but i

do have empathy, having being in negotiations, it can be very very stressful and very tiring and sometimes even when you win, you feel like you've lost. and i know that you recognize this given the number of times in the short amount of time but this is a long term gain, and this outcome, although it's not what it could have been, it's significant better than it could have been, thank you for your involvement here as well. i concur with my commissioners and the outcome. >> i will disagree, just to comment and i'm sympathetic to mr. klipp and i was also aggressive in the first hearing thinking it was coming way too short.

: i feel like a dennis enforcing a tooth removal. i would hope that in the future that this is idealistic that shortage of 20,000 trees and not try to short change, the citizens of san francisco. i would call upon about all and i'm trying not to be sarcastic with being more understanding and entrepreneurial in providing the tree canopy and understanding when you pull out the beautiful trees that are going to be pulled out next to that hospital, which if you've

ever drifp, they're only trees to some people but for some born and raised here, those trees have been there since i've been alive and they're beautiful and magnificent and they're going to be gone. let's get to a fair return on the loss of those iconic trees. and secondly, that extremely serious about this, when you are when it's represented that trees will be front planted and specifically, and you can look into the testimony regarding this from our last hearing, that when we asked where should those trees be planted, i heard bellevue and we pressed where the right place to see plant the trees and it was reaffirmed.

that's a not so subtle hint, and we want some accountability about that, i think. i hope the commissioners and the commission itself will have the institutional memory to go back and check on dpw, hold dpw accountability in the neighborhood. on that, who would like to make the >> i kind of already made the motion. i move to grant the appeal subject to the adoption of the revised tree replacement plan along with recommendation of

urban forestry check in with us, annually. between now and 26. >> i request slightly amending, instead of saying until 2026, until the completion of the trees under the plan. >> that is a friendly amendment that i agree to. >> okay, and would the basis be based on ucsf commitment to the city? >> yes. >> so on that motion, stritioner trasvina. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg? >> yes. >> we'll take a break now and after the next hearing.

>> are we in recess. >> no we're going to start. versus the zoning administration, appealing issuance, to take of a letter determination. responded to request to a determination regarding the permitted envelope for rh districts and how these may be impacted by state laws. more specifically they had questions and local approval of discretion and how these are impacted by state law. record number 2207996 and we will hear from a representative from that appellant first.

we're getting set up. and the standard of review is error discussion. >> president swig, i think it would be helpful for the commissioners to have a copy of slide on hand. >> can you speak into the mic. >> i believe it would be helpful there is a lot of dense information that i have to slide through for the board. >> okay. >> can we get three more up here.

if you have three more. otherwise. >> okay, we're fine but they can share, is that right? >> i apologize. >> no worries, you can go ahead. do you want to get your presentation up on the laptop first. >> the laptop, please. >> there you go. >> so i'll have to move quickly and this is the summary of the brief. so, these are contested issues. that issues we decide today no voluntary where ever the a

likely errored or didn't answer questions. we're hoping the board should overturn and modify and inconsistent to achieve the goals of the brief. we also believe to deny the appeal the board must fully agree with everything in the lod and rational and sided codes and disagree with reading of those codes and other codes. and also believe that section 307 a would plan all from making lod on how state laws affect any city codes. and the city could risk being sued that were made. and, we would also believe that

it would also mean that no future city official could perform an lou on how the state law affects any city code. also remove to renew the deno voluntary based upon kate connors briefing a month ago to the board and as the board has done in the past, pasta paelz. noted in the presentation. note that the kate connor in that briefing to the board, said the rdg is not an objective standard and can be applied on the haha, and not to codify that in the lod because we asked that question.

we're kind of mystified. here very technical and narrow issues, we asked the board to design upon here. obligate today make determinations interrupting city planning code and statehousing laws. and we the 40x high volt district is part of the general plan. so the 35 foot, building limits are not enforceable. like wise the 30% rear yard is not enforceable and likewise, setbacks are not enforceable. so accordingly, we believe that the issue is ahara rear yard

and no set backs may not be denied termity. i'm sorry, i'm not flipping slides. i'm new at this. sorry to everybody. i'm on this slide and i'll do my job going forward. regarding 40x height issue, we have come to experience that the za has no expertise on the 260 a demonstrated on the email that i had with the za. section 260 a set no 40x limit so the za is not skilled to answer if the 40x is part of the master general plan. this is very esoteric, very old

stuff. because they're unaware also because they're unaware about section 252 and 340. accordingly, we believe the board must decide lod questions, 1-a of the lod deno vo and copied with the notes below on this slide. and key facts and arguments, highlighted from the brief and with a if you extra points, new is, per prior lods za must make lod applying state laws on building permits and issuance and denial. where it a says, the key is

applicability of the provisions of code. obviously the applicability of city code is subject to state laws. per even per za prior sited in the brief and exhibit b1 and b2 and b3, summarized below. and if sections 307 intended to exclude state laws from lod determinations, they would have just stated that explicitly. and the board also heard an appeal where the za analyzed in great details to argue code compliance. so za is very confident.

because of. >> 30 seconds. >> yeah, i was making sure i was flipping slides, i got confused sorry. part of the general plan, because the height zoning is those created in 1972 in section 252 which updated the zoning map with the 40x zoning. as part of the city's pre19 master plan. and then later on, section 340 incorporated that master plan. >> thank you. that's time. >> that's time, you'll have time in rebuttal as well. >> that was time, sorry, i lost it. >> we do have a question. commissioner lemberg?

>> thank you, i'm, i'm a little lost. who are you and what is your interest in this matter. i'm confused why is this before us? >> well, i mean who am i. >> you didn't even state your name on the record. >> sorry, julia introduced me. i'm representing the appellant and, basically, the lod is about our rh1 controls and getting determinations on these different issues and how they apply. obviously, they control and limit, you know, affordable housing in the city. so we would like to understand

them and the lod is a great vehicle to do that, it's city codes that need to be interpreted. >> that's all fine and dandy. what is your interest, if you had gotten a different answer from the zoning administrator, then you did. what was the goal in getting these interpretations in the first place? automatic of these pages are meant to be in the abstract entirely. and i'm strug with your argument that the they errored on this way based on this

abstractions that they don't have connection. >> a okay beinger that's a understandable feeling about that. let me ground it. these abstractions, control the core of rh1 controls. and as you know, 70% at least of san francisco are controlled housing under rh1. that's ground for you, you don't need one location. so that grounds it. so each one of these issues, controls what affordable housing can be done. so it's very interesting. so there are quite critical and grounded. >> do you have an affiliation are you with a plow firm? with a group or just here?

>> unaffiliated, just representing appellant and appellant has an interest in the matter. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, president swig. >> i have a question for mr. gibbner. help me put some bumpers and context on a letter determination. especially when it is, as my fellow commissioners just stated, in abstract, we don't have a project here. we don't even have a bundle of projects, this is a general question. where the where the za was asked for a letter of termination completely in the abstract. how far or what should the

letter of determination be xkted to contain if in deed there is no physical property, properties neighborhood region, district to hook that question to? >> thank you, president swig. this is problem a question bet per answered by mr. teig. >> i'm asking from a legal stand point. if you're looking for a, i'm asking for some legal guideline on abstraction and legal compliance and abstracts, it's kind of like me an oxymoron. if you're going to get a ticket for doing 56 miles per hour, you've got to have a 55 miles per hour zone, right?

and so, what is the, the letter of determination how does a letter of determination expected to behave legally in the context of something as abstract as represented by fellow commissioner. >> they have the authority to interpret the authority code. even if it's not tied to a specific project but as i think this, this commissioner lemberg's line of question suggests, it's more difficult for the zoning administrator to fully analyze a question without some kind of factual under pinnings. >> thank you. >> i'm going to attempt a more legally version of mr. swig's question.

i just want to give the answer to your question. in section 307 a, it says the zoning, should respond regarding the classification of uses and interpretation and applicability of the provisions of this code. based on that code section, do you believe that mr. teeing letter of determination appropriately answered according to that standard? >> that correctly or appropriately told the requester that there were answer questions.

>> thank you, commissioner? >> the ways i view is the zoning administration did answer questions. i believe the answers bert part of questions, 1567 and 8, obviously. the member of the public didn't like the answers, and is dissatisfied but i believe the questions were answered. on the question, is there a place can somebody come forward with without any proposed plan? we did that a few months ago, the zoning administer insisted that he could not withdrawal a letter of determination on a marijuana store that was no

longer in the works but yet insisted that he could not withdrawal it. so i think we're stuck with these and other matters before us, ir respect of how distant they are from anything close to going into the ground. >> sorry to opening up this can of worms before hearing the rest of the hearing. i apologize for opening this can of worms and i think we should move to mr. swig. >> thank you, you can be seated. we will now hear from the administrator. >> good afternoon or good evening, now.

yes, i think the brief clearly outlined the situation at hand. there were a number of questions, it was a bit of a challenge to come premens the full scope. i spoke with them on the phone to get a better understanding and shared some emails. that was not necessarily a price. again, to me there were kind of, it helped me to group the consolidate the questions into a few more general questions that kind of capture the full range of questions that were asked. and they really boil down to three issues.

one being, the consistency of the planning code with various state laws. the other consistency of certain code provision wz the general plan. and the other question specifically whether or not a building perm ut that did not meet certain code could be denied despite the state laws. so in my response, i should back up a little bit. it is not uncommon to get requests for determination that's are not site specific they're topic specific or really focused on a specific code section. in my response, i did try to make it as clear as possible that 307 a, i'm required to respond in writing which i did. but my per view is to interpret the planning code.

i could not have, any authority or responsibility to interpret state law, and whether or not the city is meeting state law and that authority would then transfer to you on this board on appeal. we did not have that authority. similarly there were questions as to whether or not certain ordinances passed by the board of supervisors were consistent with the general plan. my question is that the board is determining their board with the general plan. and in both cases, if somebody determines an action by the board of supervisors to not be consistent, the avenue to address that is the court system and not necessarily the zoning administrator. and i did confirm that a permit that did not meet the code, could be denied bit planning

department because it was not consistent with the planning code. they act like the state laws don't exist. but we do have two parallel processes for that. that's why we have the zoning administrator issuance bulletin. our director also issues bulletin. and those bulletin are administrative for process but also things that fall outside of the planning code such as state law or how we're going to process projects pursuant to state law. that's why we have separate staff like ms. connor who was here a few weeks ago with that trainer. part of her primarily role is to help the department

synthesize those laws. and then last but not least, one of the questions that was raised in the request and the brief is this, concept of whether or not the general plan is part of the planning code. i have made the clarification that they're two separate entities governored separately. clearly in a relationship but they're separate entity that they're not part of the planning code, not part of the general plan. so i do feel that the requirement of the zoning administrator was met. and i felt that the answers provided are correct. i'm available for any questions you may have. i hope you deny the appeal. >> president swig and then

commissioner lemberg has question. >> thank you for your testimony. and i don't have a disagreement with that testimony. however, we have a member of the public who obviously, would probably just agree with me at this point, but, this member of the public really worked hard and obviously, has sincere commitment to understanding the future as he put it of how some of our codes, laws, et cetera, affect the development of affordable housing. and i think part of our job on this panel revolves around the word empathy. i'm empathetic that this gentleman has put forth one hell of a lot of effort and as

evidence by the task that he put you through, with his tremendous amount of detailed questions. how, how is this member of the public going to ultimately be satisfied to understand the implementation of these codes laws, et cetera in this pursuit? will it be, you mentioned the civil court. that's certainly one way. or will it be through as my fellow commissioner mentioned, you know where is, where is this going? you know, what is this, what is this line of question attached to or whatever is this attached to? how will this member of the

public, i'm empathetic towards his passion and interest of getting answers. but will this member of the public get some satisfaction if we, if we agree with you on the letter of determination? >> i cannot speak to what ultimately satisfy the appellant. i can speak to the fact that you're correct, just through this letter process, it's been significant amount of time spent. i do know that the appellant has had conversations on similar topics with ms. connor multiple times, with the director of current planning and director of department. i do feel department has provided more than sufficient responses. and, we do issue, one of the reasons we have bulletins, that is a public facing document

that does explain how to implement state laws. we have it in writing, so it's fairly clear. it's obvious that there is not satisfaction on the position that the department and the city has taken on interpreting and implementing the laws. if that's the case, i'm assuming the interpretations don't change, the next step would be the court system, whatever process got them to that point. >> so your point of view is at this point, the city is using, these things on either side of my head, listening and putting out bulletins and trying to on going basis, your interpretation of state law as it a mraouz to city statutes and general planets. >> absolutely. >> and you cannot make everybody happy, you can only try? >> absolutely, the department devotes to a lot of time and

coordination with the city attorneys office and others on our interpretation and implementation of state law. it's definitely not a trivial task when we develop and issue those bulletins. >> thank you, i'll differ to commissioner lemberg. >> thank you, mr. swig. --in teig, where is the general plan codified. >> so the general plan is a separate document and adopted and a separate and distinct document. you can access it from our website. you can get hard copies if you really want. but, but yes, it's codified and adopted through, you know the general plan which was just amended with our housing element being adopted by the board of supervisors. it's similar to the planning code given that it's all separate documents that has different components that can

be separately amended, that adequate? >> absolutely. second question, and i'm going to give an out on this one if you don't want to answer it. >> okay. >> when i see an appeal like this one, my inclination is to try to figure out what is really underneath it? do you have an opinion on what is underneath the request for lod? what the appellant's are trying to achieve? >> i have not spoken specifically to mia pel ant. my understanding is that there is one or more proposed developments that are either in conceptual or application that are, that the appellants has received feedback as to how the code would apply or how the state laws would or have not applied and that has not been satisfactory. there has been a request about a month ago, a new lod request

for a specific development proposal on a property in the city. i don't know if that is the ultimate source or additional, but it's my understanding and the appellant may be able to speak more to it, that there is ultimately, desire to be able to develop certain sites in a certain way pursuant to their interpretation of state law. >> thank you. >> sure. >> commissioner lopez? >> yeah, not really a question i think it's more of a an aside or a question. but clearly, based on our line of questioning this evening, the fact that, you know, ms. conors, you know, really really, you know, great presentation to us was very well received and appreciated by us. there is a lot of complexity in this patch work of this state

and federal local with exceptions, all along that chain in terms of what applies and what contacts. i think we would do more to present, you know at a very high level, you know, where where the kind of plinko chips hit different, cascade different jurisdictional along the way. i have seen very good and i cannot claim dob an expert in the planning department but i have seen really good, you know, collateral on those, you know, types of frame works with respect to adu policy, for example. but, that is just and obviously that's not going to circumvent or address you know, the potential need for all possible appeals of this sort or lod request of this sort.

but i do think that it's complex enough to where, we may be able to do more to just get people a high level of overview of who controls what, where you can go for, you know, bulletin guidance on what and just give people, you know at least a brief road map to the rabbit whole should people decide to dive in. >> sure, thank you for that suggestion. i think, i think that's where we attempt to do with the bulletins and the website. there is no escaping the complexity, you're absolutely correct. the preferd method is when a state law is passed and we need to amend it, you don't have to two separate vehicles to go where you need to go. that takes time, also state law keep getting updated sometimes

faster than we can update, do local revisions. so that's why we can't of have this two parallel tracks. the planning code it applies to the unless, there is you know, bulletin about state law that says in these situations it does not apply or applies differently. that's the source, we rely on the planning code, that is the foundation and the bulletin are designed to layer over there and we try to provide that information concisely and as easily to digest on our website, i recognize that is a challenge based on volume and complexity and the way they intersect, let alone how they intersect with the code but together. it's definitely a challenge and i hear you on that. >> okay, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. so we'll move on to rebuttal.

so mr. tolela, sorry if i pronounce your name wrong. >> thank you. yeah, i was hoping a lot of technical legal discussion on the codes fm these codes that i laid out here point a logical legal chain that rebuts everything that was just said by the za, and if you read the lod questions, the za's question is not the lod's questions. for example, just off the top, the lod was not asking about consistency between the general plan and the. it was asking if the 40x bulk was part of the plan and then i map out for the board, that section 350 created in 1972,

the 40x high bolt. no response. then i point out section 340 actually says the master plan which that section 42 with a 40x high bolk that master plan was created into this new general plan. all of this stuff is in the code, section 307 za's responsible however those things can apply, those are all in the code. so i'm asking is 40x bl olk part of the master man. and mr. teig says, i don't have to answer any of that. but answer 207 says he does. same thing as state law affecting local process, if we say how will this affect local process if the general plan is picked over specific plan and if that take place of general plan, how does that pan out?

we have to know. under the ahah, it's maybe only one paragraph. a lot more complex than that and there is no bulletin on this 40x high bulk and bulletins are not interpretation that's are binding and they interpret city code, i can show you that bulletin does not track state law. and those should be contested. if the za is not responsible for answering to state law and how that affects city code interpretations, then nobody is. and the public and the intent of 307 a was to give predictability of the public. then we're left blank that's a big problem. i'm unfortunately disappointed from that. >> thank you, he we have a question from trasvina. >> thank you, if i can ask you

a couple of questions. first, i appreciate the interest in the subjects and the bona fidy nature of inquiry. i do worry about the mention of the determination letter process. wnl the letter from zoning administrator, he refers some of your inquiries to determinations made by the board of supervisors. have you inquired with any of your board of supervisors on any of these matters? >> okay, so that is an inperpperpnant response. >> my, my question was have you -- ~>> let me clarify. >> i don't want to get into a debate. >> that's not relevant, the reason if you read. >> it's a i yes or no question, sir.

>> there is no consistency question which only the board of supervisors can answer. we're not asking consistency questions, no, there is no reason to go to the board of supervisors. >> very good. have you gone to your district supervisor or any other supervisor seeking your help in seeking their help in getting an answer from part of the bureaucracy? in this matter? >> as far as plain reading, no. >> thank you. >> za answers plan interpretation so nobody else wor logical to go to. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. we will now hear from the zoning administrator, you can be seated. >> thank you, again, corey teig

zoning administer, they do not determine the height districts, on appropriate heights and urban design elements for the city. high districts established as part of the code, we have high maps, we have zoning maps and height maps, they are part of the code. and they map the city and clearly establish what the high and bulk, whether it's 40x, whether it's 120 a, whatever that may be, those require separate legislation to adopt or amend, that's how our height districts are created. in terms of options, we have plenty of litigation that we're

dealing right now. people use the courts if they think the city has taken action that is not consistent with the state law, that is the appropriate avenue to do that, it's not uncommon and people do that and that is available. in terms of just nuance, in terms of the responsibility on interpreting the code and applicability of the code, not to be too nuanced but the responsibility is to determine the applicability of the planning code not the applicability of other state or federal laws, that is a separate type of applicability. sxl it may be that a state law has applied will render some of the parts moot. but again, the zoning administrator only task with the applicability of code not the law. i hope that helps answer some additional questions and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you, we don't have any questions at this time.

so commissioners this matter is submitted. >> mr. trasvina, you asked most of the questions you want to start. >> thank you, president and i want to thank the member of the public for presenting this. i am sympathetic for his quest for information, his quest for working through the bureaucracy. as if we're, if the standard here is abusive discretion, what i see in the materials and as i said earlier, the written materials could, what comes through from the written materials is not an abuse of discretion but a good faith effort to understand and his staff to understand the questions that have been presented. and attempt to answer them and as a said earlier, i believe the lod answers questions, 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, i would

encourage members of the public. when i was a deputy city attorney we used to have deputy of the day and members of the public would come to the front desk and ask questions about the bureaucracy. and the most junior members of the team would be selected to answer the questions. whether it's that process or whether it is, whether it is your member of the board of supervisors who can help get questions and answers from the bureaucracy, i would encourage you to take other steps other than the letter of determination. but on this letter, i would say it's appropriately, appropriately issued and i would denial the appeal based on its correct issuance. >> would you like to make that motion. >> i will move to--is it upholding the letter? >> upholding the lod on the non

error discretion and the lod was properly issued. >> i so moved. >> any commissioners have further comment or should we go to vote. >> move to vote. >> okay, so on that motion, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner epmrer. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and that appeal is denied. we're moving on to item number 7, sunset association versus planning approve -- ~>> this is going to be a long session i have a suggestion. can we take a five-minute biological break for the benefit. >> why don't we take a ten-minute biological so everybody can relax a little bit. >> and we can come back. thank you very much. >> thank you, but yes, that's fine. that's fine, ten-minute break.

we'll be back at 7:05, >> okay, welcome back to the february 8, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we're now on item number 7, this is appeal mid-sunset association versus the planning, planning 2025 irving street to the tenderloin corporation of a demolition permit, demolish a two-storey building, permit number 2022-06277912. i do want to announce that we have a cantonese interpreter if anybody needs assistance and president swig, a disclosure to make. >> oh sure, i have used the have been involved for the firm

in various actions over a very long time. however my use of them in unrelated matters will have no impact on any decision that i will make tonight. >> i'll make one more statement with regard to the protocol of tonight's hearing. there are approximately 25 people, would you raise your hand if you're here to do public comment. good, about 25 poem who intend on making public comment. currently 60 or so people that we can't see virtually online that wish to do the same thing. we want to hear from everybody but in the issue of time in the issue of this panel's staff and

panel, i would like to limit public comment to one minute and also, if you find during public comment that your point has been made and that you don't feel the need to be redundant, you don't have to comment and that will shorten the activity, get us through the same result given that the comment has been made. if you want to be redundant, we want to hear your comment. that's a long time, so you can understand and i talk about empathy in the last hearing, empathy please, toefsh. mr. gibbner, can you help us out too with some guidelines

and interruption, thank you. >> sure. >> thank you, president swig. >> before this item you asked if i can give a if you legal session before the legal board. as some of the papers have indicated, this project is a subject to a state law called sb35 named after the bill number. sb35 requires the city to approve affordable residential housing projects that meet certain standards, and criteria. because sb35 requires the city to ministerial approve, this is not for discretionary review under section 26. under sb25 the city's review of the project is to determine to

see if the project meets the project. in this appeal, based on the papers, the party don't request whether sb35 --applies. but they also have specific rules about subsequent permits required to complete a permit like a demolition permit. for those permits, sb35 does three things. one, the city must issue the permit if the applicant complies with the development as it was approved. two, the city can't impose any procedure or requirement that is not imposed on other projects that are not subject to sb35. and three, the city review of the permit application must not inhibit, chill or pro concluded the development. so here, the board cannot compose any conditions that the city does not impose on non sb35 projects.

i don't have a list of the usual conditions but the it may be helpful if the board wants to inquire more to ask either the parties or more specifically dbi or dbh who have representatives here, about the types of condition that the city does apply on demolition permits. and to the excellent that there are any conditions on the permit, on the sb35 those cannot preclude the project from moving forward. >> okay, thank you, we will now hear from the appellant first and mr. wang, welcome you're the attorney for the appellant. >> yes, thank you. >> thank you, you have seven minutes. >> president swig. >> if you can adjust your microphone, i'm so support, if you pull it up so we can hear you better. thank you. >> president swig, commissioners, enok wong, i'm

here to represent the appellant referred to as msna it's a group of resident that live close to the property that is proposed to be demolished. at this want i want to introduce our expert witness on pc contamination for doing demolition and paul hostman who lives very close to the subject property and is our environmentally liason. this board has the to grant the appeal and limit conditions. these conditions are not conditions that wouldn't be imposed on other properties. and they wouldn't inhibit or chill the progress of this development.

they're very simple conditions that we're requesting vital in light of the new findings that have been ignored from its site management plan submitted and it's application submitted june 2022. the conditions are such. they're feasible, they're inexpensive, we want to have professional geologist supervisor to collect soil and soil vapor and test them for pc, because the new findings in 2022 which have been ignored indicate that not only is there, a list site just south of the property which used to be all right cleaners there is contamination right to the property which used to be miracle cleaners. and police credit kaoun i don't know 2520 irving and that needs to be investigated. and during demolition, there is

an absence of this testing in the plans. and this is feasible and if it's not done during demolition, there is risk that evidence that will be destroyed and this will have significant consequences in any remediation plan. supervisor joel, recently elected has strongly supported this appeal and the conditions and you'll hear about that later. so i'm going to yield my time at this point to don moore. >> hello everyone, don moore, pro-bono more over head. this map on the screen shows that 2515 is a source of pc e contamination and likely source of pce vapors and homes at unacceptable levels.

this is a soil vapor contour map, contour to the residential screening level. there is one point in the center that is 100 times above the screening level. it's important to note this is a location of pce sale may trex where there is pce not just vapors but actual pce in the soil. the indoor levels in the homes, range from above 2 times the esl to four times the esl and the esls are health base screening levels based on cancer risks. a source investigation on this property remains a significant data gaped in the site management plan for the demolition process needs to be amended to include this investigation. if you look at the figure, it shows that there is actually

been no sampling on this property other than a half foot soil vapor sample on the northern part of the property. we'll point to this later why this is a significant data gap. the snp should also be amended to include details that the dtsc provided the sunset association on november 4th that are not currently in the snp. the tndc appeal responses are based on a faulty promise that the dtsc provided adequate oversight. they have not and the dtsc is stated to have human health based on clean up. dtsc made mistakes by not requiring the police credit union to conduct an appropriate

investigation response plan contrary to two guidance documents. in 2019 and 2020 reports all west the consultant for the credit union created a false narrative that miracle cleaners was not a significant source based on zero data and pointed across the street to former all bright cleaners as the primary source also with zero data. in a 2021 report, fast forward without collecting any new data, adopted all west narrative but took it a step further with no mention of miracles possible source and point today all bright as a major source. i have excerpts but in interest of time we can read them later. finally in 202 2, what enoc pointed out it showed that it

was not the significant source that everybody hoped and speculated. this is a dtsc figures it showed the sampling that was done at all bright, six locations showing an address quat investigation, multi depth sampling and soil vapor focused on key features and dry-cleaning equipment and sewer larlz. this highlights the lack of data that is paul is pointing to right now, so the footprint is -- ~>> 30 seconds. >> had no data. all 34irk cal is a source at that location. this last figure shows that this, this is not a complicated problem, it's a comingle vapor

plume 20 times, 160 times above the residential screening level. >> that's time. ?flt thank you. >> you'll have time in rebuttal. we do have a question from commissioner lemberg for you though. >> thank you. and, please be advised i'll be asking a lot of tough questions considering the depth of documents that were submitted by both sides. this is a question by mr. wong, so the first thing i want to do is ask, and we would not have known that there was a previous, court proceeding had the tndc not submitted a declaration. so first question, did you represent the msna, >> yes i'm the counsel of

record. >> thank you, can you describe what happened in the previous court proceedings? >> so the main cause, based not on what is going on here although that in our amenity complaint there is no environmental issues that have been brought in. but the primarily there was a resolution passed, the different resolutions and there is environmental resolution that was passed last year and there was a resolution that was passed earlier.

that was a requirement, it was an optional. and so we, we brought this in san francisco's superior court. we amended demure was grabted sustained to now amend the first court of appeal. we also appealed, sought a preliminary injunction early on and that was denied. those two appeals just got consolidated, we completed briefing on the injunction and that they've been consolidated and briefing has yet to begin on the demur, we believe we

have a strong case. >> that's any nut shell. >> can you help me when the injunction was filed and when it was denied and when the appeal was filed? >> so i want to be accurate. i want to say that that injunction, we filed the complaint in december 2021. at the same time, finally followed a motion for preliminary injunction that was heard in january 2022. we fully briefed t the briefing

was completed in 2022, and sort of parallel track, we were facing challenges to the sufficiency of complaint from tdnc and that was three sounds of that, that was 2022, order sustaining the demur without lead to amend, we filed an appeal right away in december of 2022, that's where it sits. so the report was already available to you, is that correct?

tft put in the list and in substance order. it was right before the snp the site manage plan was permitted by holder. so then, so that's for the south property, the all bright, that's what you asked about, right? >> yes. >> it was available but it should have been acknowledged, there is, the site management plan should have addressed that and so do the plans, and the mrabz were dated june 2022, it does not address that. >> yeah, june 22, june 2022 is when the all bright data became available that's the dry-cleaner on the southside. >> yeah, the imminent, mr.

moore made a important clarification, because the imminent and substantial isc order issuing in october 2021, does not mean that the data is available, right. so mr. moore said, data did not become available until june, the testing further testing about that being a source, so that didn't become available until june 2022, that's a good clarification. >> okay, so based on that timeline then, so the what was the basis of your preliminary infunction argument? if not the dft,--dtsd report which was not issued until months after the injunction. >> that was little, the complaint that was heard had to do with, with the resolution and the height and scale

requirement for tdnc. that does not mention it had nothing to do with the environmental. >> so here's the important question, why was a separate lawsuit and separate injunction not filed once this new information was uncovered? >> so, you know, we by we, i mean, the msna, don't really look at litigation as a last resort. we believe this is delt with through the process of dbi and the board of appeals. we didn't want to bring something, we use the cord of a

last resort. sxl that was appropriate because it was a resolution, the, imminent harm, ir rerepresent pri babble harm if they didn't negotiate the number of floors down, as they should have, and they go forward with the process, there is going to be ir repirable harm. it's going to be hard to do. that was the basis, we don't want to go to the courts right. this matter is appropriate for this tribunal. >> all right, i'm struggling a little bit with your response because on one hand you're saying that you want to use the court as the last resort but on the other hand, the first thing that you did was file a lawsuit as soon as facts became available. so i'm having a hard time, aligning those two answers in my head.

>> there is apples and oranges. the lawsuit was filed on the basis of a resolution that asked tdndc to gave faith on scale. the facts were abundantly clear that they were ignoring us, that they were not going to listen. the trigger was of our filing in that case, was them submitting their application to planning. if you got pushed through planning, there is the risk of ir repirable harm. that's different from what we have here, which there is the environmental the pc contamination which at that point, you know, i would say in december 2021, we don't have the facts that we have today.

why did you not appeal to this body when the initial plans were issued from planning? >> well, the, we tracked planning. we didn't they followed you know, as i believe they followed the rules they were very responsive. so we, we didn't it was not, we were not challenging. the lawsuit is not naming the city or planning department, it names the developer. so on the basis of its failure to comply, it's a breech of

contract case on the basis of failure to comply with the resolution. and so, the and so that's, it's different in, when you say there is sb35 issues here and i really want to refer to what mr. gibbner said at the beginning. the attorney criteria is the second one that you're not being asked to impose conditions that you would not be imposing on anyone else. and the third one is important that the conditions are very limited and not expensive and very discreet and they're not going to inhibit of chill the process. we're just asking, really, to ask them to either do it themselves with our supervision or to have us do it that we have outlined that mr. moore has outlined during the demolition process.

there is very specific areas, there is a strong possibility that the viewer pipe if you don't collect the evidence there besinger it's going to be destroyed and it makes it that much harder, these two gentleman, and others and the supervisor at that time was present in the meeting in december 2022. dcag agreed, this is new information not considered. and i was ignored by the permit holder in terms of the north being a source and the necessity of collecting soil there, because it has not been studied like the southside, all bright. it's really critical, it's critical to do it during demolition. if you wait, there is, you're going to destroy the evidence and it's going to make it that much harder.

>> i'm still confused if all of these environmental hazards are real, but instead the injunction was done on a injunction on height limits. >> height and scale that's a totally different resolution. like i said, we don't we don't want to see. this is the process, if the permit gets granted, we appeal. it's not the courts that are the arbitor, this is to consider demolition. and if there are public health

issues, which there are, indisputed, to impose limited conditions to address that, it's very they know that they can do it. it's best practices, i talked to a number of geologist, just collect the soil. there is half a dozen places, that's it. if you find higher than above a certain base line, that triggers the next stop. and that informs your remediation plan. >> thank you, and rest assured i'll be asking those questions of other parties here as well. >> okay, we have one more question from commissioner trasvina. mr. wrong. >> thank you and i welcome you and all of the members to this proceeding. i think this matter is appropriately before us, whether there is been other

litigation and restraining orders, that's fine but we have before us the permit. i want to ask you a couple of questions and also a question for mr. gibbner. the closerphene, i believe the epa calls it a likely carcinogen. can you describe the health impacts on future residents, current neighbors and workers? >> they're substantial and i want to direct that question to mr. moore. >> i want to know what is at stake here? >> it's substantial. >> to finish what i was going through earlier, the pce and vapors is a serious health

risks, this is confirmed by experts, i'm one of them. decades of exposure to pce to san francisco families above the esl, higher historic levels were undoubtedly present. this includes, you know, exposure to children and elderly. and this is a situation where we're asking dtsd is very questionable risk modeling. and the demolition process, offers the best and last opportunity to address the significant data gap to inform decisions moving forward and that's appropriately part of the site management plan that is coupled with the demolition process. yeah, it's existing health risks to residents adjacent to this. but new guidance states that the vapor mitigation that is

being proposed is only an interim measure and only should be used after active remedial methods had been used. their response plan is to contrary to water board guidance. >> i appreciate that this is a neighbor's coalition, but the health risk apply equally to the workers building this and to the residents itself, correct? >> so yeah, i don't believe the level of exposure to the workers during that short exposure period. but there is exposure to future residents because the guidance regarding vapor mitigation, says these are interim measures. so they don't want last forever, if they're not maintained, the future residents, like i said there is one location that is 100 times above the residential screening level where this affordable

housing project is proposed and in this vapor mitigation system could fail in 10-20 years. >> and based on the public testimony that we've received over the past few days, am i correct to understand that there are known elevated pce levels as well as you know known? >> that's correct. there are known levels above the screening level in four of six homes that have been sampled. but if you saw that pc e shows the extent of this, it's been 40 different residential and mix use products on the 2500 block of irwing. >> i will ask the city this question, maybe perhaps you or your colleagues know this, how often how frequent is it for a demolition permit to be issued with this kind of environmental

situation? without a site management plan? >> yeah, it's there is been a narrative for the two property owners originally all west of the police union where they created this narrative with no data that miracle was not a source. we learned that that is not a significant source. we know that there is jail matrix of formal miracle cleaner that represents a release of pce happened near the location. so you can assume that if you actually sam pbl beneath formal miracle cleaners which has not

been done adequately, you're going to have higher levels of matrix. >> i appreciate your answers. if i can ask mr. gibbner, there is a resolution that the board of supervisors passed regarding this development. do you know if that was passed before or enactment of sb35? >> the board of supervisors has adopted two, the first to authorize loan to tndc i believe that was a 2021 resolution and then the second resolution in 2022, urging valuation of the environmental risk. sb35 passed before those resolutions. >> and a general manager, do board of supervisors approve

resolutions of laws and joy preassumption of being legal. >> when the boateder of supervisors seeks to abide a law, it acts by ordinance. when the board approves an agreement like the contractor alone, it acts by resolution, the board also acts by resolution to actor to urge departments including state departments to do things. so here, the boards resolution in 2022, was a non binding request, does that answer your question? >> for now, it does, thank you. >> thank you, we have a question from vice president lopez and then commissioner lemberg. >> this one might be for mr.

wong. i just want to make sure given the volume of briefing and public comment and reports, i want to make sure that we're all clear on aspects of your testimony which i thank you for. i heard you say that at least in the september 22, meetings that they acknowledged, the health risk that were discussed then. so is it essentially that, you know, those health risks which it sounds like were acknowledged in that conversation did not make it into that stampede and that is the basis to the statement that the findings were ignored or

what exactly the underlying basis for that statement? >> it's, a combination. so the cenology here were ignored, and should have been addressed. like the september 2022, was after both the snp submitted 2021 and demo application and the drawings which was mitted june 2022. and there was data that was being generated concurrently as mr. moore said in june 2022 with all bright that perhaps the permit holder didn't have access to when it was completing a demo permit applications. but there were other things that they plainly knew, for example the order was october 2021. they had access to that.

the snp was submitted, they had ak sets to the isc, that is extremely serious right. you have the property directly to the south, it's put on the coretez list, it was not addressed. that fits into what i say, they ignored. and then the resolution was that mr. gibbner was talking about the latest resolution, was july 2022. again that post dates the permit application. so it's right around that same time. but also another contact of when i say they ignored. the briefing ignores it. they ignore that there is new evidence, there is another aspect that they're aware of that they didn't mention at all which is the indoor door sampling in the fall of 2021, they had access to that. although the results may not

have been because the results may have make, they definitely had access to that before they did the demo permit application, they ignored that. and then last friday, they did another round, we will not have those results right away. but those are all critical data points. but you know, that latter aspects of ignoring, i really, i mean in the process of their briefing to this board. >> got it. and then related question, i think it would be helpful to understand the state of play between the parties on the topics. so have there been, you know, subsequent conversations, you know, between the parties and their experts since september 22? >> since september 2 no.

in full disclosure, because it's important to be transparent, we have discussions not on this piece, not since september 2022, i mean they reached out to us when we filed the appeal. but nothing really happened, so, got it. >> thanks. >> thank you from commissioner recommend bergh. --lemberg. >> this may be better suited for one of the other representatives, i wanted to follow on something that vice president lopez said regarding the september 3, 2022 with the tcsc and supervisor mar's office.

it was a lengthy meeting they found quite a bit findings, have there been any progress made since september on that plan from your perspective and the neighborhood associations perspective on such a plan? and i'll be asking each of the parties this question. i just want to hear you or your clients position on this. >> we men with the supervisor and then merideth he's the supervisor of tsc, they told us, there is on going investigation in this area as you know, as you pointed out, there is more data being collected in the homes. and that, this area if you look

at that map, this is sort of a comingled, vapor plume that discharges from two dry-cleaners into the sewers, a spill likely on miracle that is not yet identified. but yeah, merideth williams did tell us that this situation should be protected, people should be protected to the maximum extent possible. we followed up with some questions on that meet ing, we have not heard back. from merideth in the lean, but we have questions that are outstanding that we feel like we're going to be address with them soon. in other words, this is on going investigation, there are still many data gaps. this is many homes that this is above. the whole southside of irving, there is a number of homes where bayeds on what we're seeing on the north side, there is going to be pc e in those

homes as well. and you know, at the end of the day, i think the neighborhood association you know, wants to comprehensive clean up consistent with supervisor mar 's resolution. that technology was less expensive than the vapor mitigation system that is being proposed by tndc and the situation in this situation i've consulted with multiple experts, it can reach, you know, from the subject property into the neighborhood. these are daon sanz, can have a reach of 30 to 50 feet and not

only clean up the subject property but clean up the beneath the homes that are being affected right now. >> thank you. and i'm apologize, i want to go to mr. wong for a different question. we are, kind of presented with the challenge here, we have the sb35 issue that mr. gibbner has spoken on. but we also have another agency that has the ability to make orders and clearly they have on this very block in resent years. do you have an opinion on and, i will acknowledge i ask mr. gibbner this question and he said he will not be able to give me an opinion. but what your position is on the dueling preemption and how we should interpret that and act on that moving forward and making our decision.

those two areas, this is a continue that is not going to inhibit or chill, it's something that you will not impose anywhere else. it's not going to run the foul of sb35. this board has for lack of better word, concurrent jurisdiction, it affects public health during demolition and you can impose limited condition such as this, which is really only soil and soil vapor collection during the process and testing. and that the, and that's concurrent with dtsc and that's looking globally, they're looking at eventually clean up

but in terms of this piece, this demo permit, it's critical and it's squarely within the providence of this board to impose a condition like that. and it was asked what about about properties. if there were other properties that had this level of pc, it would be imposed. it's just, it's just collection. and you take those soil, take that soil vapor and you test and it helps everybody. >> i'm going to ask a slightly different version of that question. do you believe that the tdsc influence the decision here as to this demolition permit? >> i think in a way, it's, like

you said, it's, you know, they said that certain things need to be done and they were very direct about it. so in a way, exerting, it's sort of, suggesting and so and i think this board can look at that and borrow guidance from that. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, i believe mr. higly is representing the permit holder. >> welcome, you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, president swig, members of the board, my name is c.j. higly, my law firm

representing the permit holder. so despite the claims with respect to environmental contamination of the project site, we think we're pretty separate forward. as not issue matter, and i have to admit that stole some of my hundreder. and as mr. gibbner has told us. also imposed elimination to see deny permits that implement the sb35 project. sb35 very explicitly says that the issue should issue permits to implement sb35 projects so long the application is consistent with the project approved with the planning department. the statute goes on to say that

the city review of such application should not inhibit or preclude element. this board faced similar circumstance on march 24, 2021 and neighbors appealed a permit affordable housing project at 4840 mission street. at that point, it recognized that does not have jurisdiction for sb35 projects. as i said at the beginning of my remarks, this is largely what mr. gibbner recited at the beginning of the hearing. just in that case, overturning the permit would put the city in legal jeopardy. but even without the benefits of sb35, the appeal has no merit. the appellant's entire argument

hinges on its assertion that dph error on applicable, as we pointed out in our brief, dph does review demolition permits with requirement for a site specific desk control plan under the desk control ordinance. but the ordinance requirement only apply to project sites that are larger than half an exercise. here because of the project is half anchor, the control ordinance does not apply and they have no jurisdiction, hence the not applicable notation from dph. examine none of this new information that dph must take, changes the fact that dph does not have a role in reviewing the permit that is before you. although the legal issues are put and dry. we want to make sure that they

have received all approval, including from tdsc and sfdph, understandable are not supported by the facts of approval that have not been received and data that has been collected. and at this point, i'm going to turn it over to the project environmental consultant to express the projects that they have undergone. >> hi i'm founder california license professional geology and also certified geology. i've been professional geology of continues with respect to the 2550 irving property on behalf of the tnc since 2013. i can assure that they have

been thorough and characterized with best practices into the satisfaction of californiaing of toxic ub stance control. potential risk at the project site will be fully and mitigated. tdsc has confirmed that no source of pce has identified at the project and no pce likely to be present. this is further supported bit fact that pce may have never been used insight. or potential remediation, although sources unlikely to be present, the site management plan was developed based on the presence of soil gas, provides

provisions for conducting dust to assess and defines protocol should unexpected source or other contamination being encountered. the site management will be implemented during all phases of redevelopment including demolition. the project site has received all approval from applicable agencies including dph and as stated, review of demolition was not made an error but instead review of the application for compliance was not applicable due to the project size. however the entire development has been fully reviewed for compliance with the maher ordinance and by email that they remain in compliance and thus protect of public health. in conclusion, i would like to

emphasize that they're inconsistent with the data generated at and around the project site and the sitings and again they're the regulatory agencies relative authority to these environmental matters. thank you. >> thank you, we have a few questions from commissioner lemberg and president swig. >> first of all i want to say to mr. higly, you would acknowledge that mr. gibbner stole your thunder but that was not brought up in your briefing at all which is why mr. gibbner made those assertions, can you speak as to why sb35 did not come up in your briefing? >> well i acknowledge that i should have included it in my breathe.

i'm raising them at this hearing and they they do remain in state law. >> when you say is a good segway into my next question. i acknowledge your point as to na notation as to dps responsibility here. i do believe it's a little bit of a red herring. the issue here is that the appellant are bringing to light, clearly, you know, very well researched well funded evidence showing block light contamination of pc e from two

different sites, two different sites from former dry-cleaners. and you're saying that dph did not have a role. maybe they didn't have a role in the direct approval and i'm not going to organize that point. i don't think it's worth arguing. is it your position that they don't have a role in supervisors the block wide environmental hazard on compelling evidence. >> no, that's not my argument. they didn't have a role the permit that is under appeal. they did have a role in reviewing the site management plan which they approved, reviewed can and approved. and that's under a separate ma mer ordinance which is separate part of the progress from the issuance of this demolition permit. >> how do you respond to the

appellant contention that new information was uncovered after the site management plan was issued? >> i would like to ask mr. gernet for that information. or the findings of the response plan. we have been in constant communication. we have spoken to them after september. i know had a meeting in november and i believe also in december. and during both of those meetings, none of this came up as a concern.

there are other responsible raerts however that personally does not hold in the realm. and they have also confirmed that through the redevelopment of this property, it will not inhibit the plume or if, remediation is required that remediation from taking place. in my review that the block wide issue that cannot addressed on a side by side basis. so you know, i read all of your briefing, i spent all weekend doing it.

it's you know, the question is not whether you've complied with the laws here. the question is, whether there is a really serious hazard to the neighborhood if this demolition moves forward. that's the crack of the issue here. and if that's the case, i want to hear evidence why that's not true. why there isn't a serious environmental hazard or a risk of environmental hazard if this moves forward without remediation takes place first. >> sure, i guess it gets back to, we don't believe and the dte has stated that our site is not the source. so during demolition is not going to change the conditions in the neighborhood. so it does not, it's not going to create additional risk to the neighborhood, it's not going to prevent the risk that does exist, you know, on a block wide base from being

dealt with. so really the demolition is not going to exacerbate the problem. in fact the concentration that's are observed on this property that are tracked are tracked by a hard scale barrier. once demolition occurs, that will off gas. and implementation which includes the vapor mitigation system, it will no longer be a permeable it will be a vented that does not allow for the buildup. >> isn't that the exact problem that the neighborhood association is trying to avoid? >> not exactly. so these are common, because the types are extremely common. they're not at a high, but easily mitigated through these sorts of mitigation system.

so this is a common practice. >> in your professional opinion, the map that the expert presented, the way the lines all across the blogsinger showing the different concentration of pc e which was gathered through actual site testing at numerous homes and other properties on the block, i mean, i'm not a toxic expert this is not my area of expertise. but it seems to me that this is a permeable substance that travels and moves around and potentially be dug up by a demolition project on the block. dtsc issued a site. it's very, it's close enough by that the, that seems to be

that, if that is, unless the appellant drawing showing the different contamination levels on the block is erroneous in some way, i cannot see a situation as to how a demolition wouldn't cause this pce gas to permeate the entire sunset neighborhood. >> sure, first i want to talk. i know there was a discussion about the order that was ordered across the street. and i just want to be clear and this was communicated by the dtsc to the appellant is that the reason that endangerment order was issued was based on the fact na the responsibility party that owned all bright

cleaners, it was not issued because it was, you know, worse than ever other site, it was only issued to give the dtcsc to be able to respond. and dtsc went further to say that the site was given a designation indicate thating there was not an immediate health risk. so you know, it's been brought forth at this endangerment order of how grave the issue is. it comes down to, you know, on our site, there are parties that are available, you know, we've taken responsibility for the onsite, there was a party that was responsible for the contributions off site. dtsc is continue to go communicate with them and you know, just because there was an unspon ive, across the street,

does not make it worse. permation, comes down to what is the source of the pce? so if you dig into a site, our site and there is no source there all you're going to do is release the material into the atmosphere. these are low and would not cause any sort of spreading, in fact it would prevent spreading because the concentrations instead of making it to the homes it would off-gas. that's number . 1. number 2, with no source present, the act of digging is not going to push anything. it's not going to move anything. that's not how to work. and the third thing, we talked about the permeability, this is very very permeable dunes dan.

so the concentration that we see based on the data is very represent on what is in the soil. and this is the basis that there is no source onsite. >> so, i again, i want to go back to something about the dtsc order for across the street project that they were saying it's tier 2 it's not high-risk of imminent failure. based on what is going on on the site. is that accurate. >> no, that's not correct. the concentrations were similar. one of the things that we point the outside, there is a very short time when pc e was an

existing and was in common use. that our site was identified as as a potential user at the cleaners. so the likely aod is very low while across the street, at the all bright cleaners, they've been using it for 25-40 years. so they continue to investigate. >> that was not my question, respectfully, is there any construction is there any reason that pce would be, being being braupt, or a lot sitting empty. my understanding is a vacant lot. the vapors are caused by a long use of the property or other properties in the area that

have released pc e potentially to the sewer, maybe the sewer leaked. it's not the construction active at this time. >> what do you mean when the say the cause of the vapors, it was the existence of dry-cleaners of 75 years ago. i'm not questioning that. >> right. >> but what, what is the, i mean the concern, the actual project that we're talking about here is going to stir up things that are caused from the is site across the street. >> sure. it has gone under the street. and it was seem to me that it

was higher than the residential guidelines in every part. >> i think i understand your question now, and i apologize for not understanding. what we have a site management plan. and that site management plan is designed to inform the construction workers of the chemicals that may be present in the sub surface. and three, it provides provisions for monitoring the air. so we have specifically controls in place that have been reviewed in order to ensure that the construction, the construction occurs in a health protective way. >> so i hear that point and again it does not address the appellant's argument which is

the risk of the rest of the neighborhood. i don't request the osha requirement and hazards to the workers and i believe the plan that you presented, it dpuz sound like it's protective of the construction workers. the concern is that it's going to stir everything up. it's no secret that it's the whole neighborhood in son doone. that sand is going to shift, i'm not a construction expert but i played in the playgrounds as a kid. i don't see how it's not a risk to the neighborhood here. >> based on what we're seeing. >> what i can say. >> what i was going to say, my

specialty is redevelopment and i've heard many many sites all over california, all over san francisco to have these issues. you know, if thed site included something like deep d water like a pool contamination, we do see that and we take specific precautions in order to prevent, but the redevelopment that is plan to go occur will not have activity expected to disturb the soil gas plume. >> and i have one more question before i pass to president swig. the appellant seize have inquurd soil extraction as

alternative. why is that not good option for this project moving forward? based on what i know here, that that method would remove the contaminant from the street and prevent this issue altogether. >> sure, and the request for soil ex strakt goes to our response plan and evaluated and all the public meetings has been brought up in the tsc and also included why it's not appropriate. and it comes down soil vapor extraction is useful when you have a source of material that you're trying to clean up. so concentrations at 100,000, 10,000 higher than what we see at our site. trying to extract to clean up when there is no source present, will not fix the problem. in fact, many soil vapor extractions are shut down long

before you reach the concentrations that you reach at our site. >> are they not two active identified sites. >> it's not, it's not the historical land use, when i say source, i mean highly contaminated soil that is acting as the source for those vapors to be generated. so the vapors as tdsc has characterized in their meetings is defused soil vapor plume. and they have not figured out where that material is coming from. so when i saw source, i don't mean like a business or a person, i actually mean highly contaminated soil that the soil extraction is designed to clean up. >> okay, thank you. >> and a question from president swig.

>> i have to recover before i move forward. basically what you're saying, seeing as a non engineering and non expert in soil stuff but having to due diligence on buildings that were once built on repair shops and gas automobile repair shops and gas stations is that, the damage that has been done to the neighborhood has been done to the neighborhood and you can't, that's, that's, that's done. it's, the ship has sailed that's it. and that the focus really should be on the on the site. and in as part of the demolition of the site, by the actions that you will take during as part of your demolition plan, there will be

even further protections from if there are any pcs that are dangerous? there will be further protections that will prevent further spread. is that what i'm getting. >> from the beginning of the statement, i don't agree how you phrased it. we don't believe, that further action on the subject property is going to fix the problem. so we're not saying that there are other areas that could be aggressed. so we don't want to say that the damage is done. >> no no no, but the assumption. we saw the maps with the spread. there is been damage done. we cannot do anything about it.

but the subject today is whether it is a dangerous activity to go into the soil because it will exacerbate the problem. so you're point of view and what you're trying to communicate to us, is that the spread has happened and what remains at the site is containable through the demolition process or through the demolition process, there is the ability to contain what might be other pcs or they may not be there at all, or if they are, they may be minute. >> i think that's correct. and when we look at modeling, i'm going to try to not be

technical as we can. that is a very very slow process. when we look at, and i'm just going to try to use an example, digging out clean dirt over a contaminated water plume and putting, you know, clean dirt back in, it can take up to a year to start seeing soil gas concentrations migrate back through. so during the duration of the demolition and redevelopment, the soil gas is not going to change, it's not going to move very far. we're talking maybe an inch. it's very very small. >> because it took a long time. >> it's a defuse i have process, it's not affective flow. >> counselor, i've got a question for you. you mentioned the case that we heard on in the mission district.

were you the counselor? >> i was not. >> so, did you study the case? >> only as to this narrow issue. you know, which is to say it's something that the board has seen before. >> and you're at a unfair disadvantage, i was here, i heard the case. that was a case related to disruption of the neighborhood and again invade thed the areas that mr. givens was gibbner was talking about, you cannot put, basically, sb35 protected. but in this case, i think is and like your opinion on it, please, is this is a health issue. this is a safety issue, this is impacts the neighborhood and certainly wouldn't a health issue that would affect an entire neighborhood be something that would be

constant with the evaluation of every project that would come forth in the city of san francisco, if it was serious potentially serious stuff? >> well -- ~>> therefore sb35 does not cover a health and safety issue. >> i think there are circumstances when the body can make certain findings. but i think the more point here is i recognize that these are serious issues and i don't mean to bee at this timele that, i think that the fear that the neighbors have is understandable. but i think the important point here is these issues are not unknown to the agencies that have jurisdictions to regulate them. there is a process a that moves

and my point here is there is no legal hook under the issuance of this permit for the board to substitute its judgment for the judgment on the regular story judgment that have jurisdiction. >> i have no idea what they're going to talk about but i think they're going to be questioned if they come back and say, this site is really dangerous raises potential to healthcare, that defeats the whole sb35 argument, does it not, because we would evaluate if health came to us on any building and said boy, this is a, test that dirt dude and you're, you're setting off a major health problem. that sb835 aside, that would not mat per. it's a health problem. and it threatens lives, correct? >> i'm not sure exactly how to respond to that. >> as opposed to when we had

the other, the other item which had to be, really disturbance of a neighborhood character and right more voice, more traffic, i cannot remember but it was more than that, that type of stuff which is, which is would not be valid in sb35 argument. >> perhaps, the city attorney might wish to weigh in here, but i believe my read of this, would be that in order to take the step that you're proprosing. >> i'm not proposing anything. >> in the hypothetical, it would be the board acting in its discretionary authority to substitute its judgment for the judgment in this case of dtsc, and that's the kind of--. >> let's ask city attorney since you're pointing in that

direction. if they came to us tonight and i don't know what they're going to say because i have not asked them, and they say, whoa, this is a major threat to the health and well fair of the immediate neighborhood health hazard, health hazard, the sb35 protection--or would? >> city attorney: that would be something that we would evaluate on a standard fashion, we're not picking on the project, we would do it any project if there was poison in the water or soil correct? >> probably bet for me to answer after you hear from the department. but in general, your review of this type of appeal, is much more limited and even if you see that there are health

concerns, that you think should be addressed, that is not a basis to impose the condition on the permit unless it's a condition that would be otherwise imposed by the city. not necessarily by this board, bye-bye city department. >> so if the city came to us. that's why i'm asking. so if the city came to us and said, no no no no, we don't want this because, it posed a significant health threat, then that's not we're not interpreting anything, that's a statement and a finding from city health or tsc. i think that's where we got to know, we have to know. >> sure, the question is, is is it the tight, is it would the city the city department take d ph.d bi impose the condition, rather than do they have a

concern, but on any other demolition permit, is this a condition that they would, that they would and do impose? >> on the unilateral consistent constant basis if this continue were anywhere else. >> that's right. >> all right, thanks. appreciate that. >> we have a few for questions, commissioner trasvina, lemberg and vice president lopez. >> thank you, on the permit itself, it's pages 30 and 31 of the record, there is language here that says pursuant to article 20 may be issued by the presence of hazardous haeft and where applicable certifies that it's completed site mitigation, does that apply to this permit? that language?

>> to the demolition permit? >> i'm not 100% sure of the answer to that question, but what i will say is that the soil has been characterized and mitigation has been undertaken. the response plan was approved by the department, by dtsc and site management plan was approved by dbh. and i believe those were, actually conducted through the site permit rather than and rather than the demolition pirment. and i think that my colleagues in attendance may be able to clarify that. but in this case, yes in fact the conditions have been studied. >> so, when it says certifies that it completed site mitigation that would suggest to me that the levels on the site are within the acceptable levels of pce? is that the way the property

currently exist? >> well, perhaps mr. greenash should answer this, lay person ppce, the presence of pce was discovered. the fact that there is pce onsite required a submit to response plan in order to address the presence of pce on the site. tndc submitted the plan. >> approved the plan you're not telling me is that the permitting is certified is completed site mitigation. >> completed site 34i9 mitigation, there is been no requirement of the soils at the site. >> all right, i'll have to hear from him.

>> so i believe what you're referring to is provisions of the article 2 a of health code. >> actually, according to the permit it's article 20 of the public works code, but sure. i'm not an attorney but, but yes. we have prepared what would constitute the mitigation plan which does propose the mitigation measures are which in this case is our site management plan which has been reviewed and they deemed that that plan is acceptable to mitigate the known health hazard that are present at the site. >> so then, has have you certified that you've completed the site mitigation? >> the site mitigation is implemented as part of the redevelopment. so it gets certified. >> so it has not been completed?

>> correct. the mitigation is the implement of the site management and response plan which will be certified and documented through a report generated by my company and approved. >> what i'm reading from the permit that is appealed is that maybe issued only after the permitee certified. and council, you seem to be saying that dph has approved this, or but i think it's more accurate that they have not said anything, they have not found anything. the permit also says, no officer employee or agency conducted the analysis recommended site mitigation measures or checked or verified the report submitted or worked performed for acura sigh.

--accuracy. am i misreading that the there is silos from dph or actual approval from dph. >> the approval from dph came under the maher ordinance not under review or dust control ordinance. i believe that in fact, dph has approved the they a have approved the management plan that is ats mitigation. so yes, i believe that they have dis kharjds their duty in that regard. >> great, and i would ask without asking a question, this part continues to say, nor does the city implement of this process relief any person from their duties understate or federal law. so it seems to be there is a

lot of, a lot of pointing fingers that others have blessed but it comes down to comes down to the permiteefrjs. thank you. >> sure. >> commissioner lemberg. >> two hypothetical, if we were to appeal the appeal, when will the demolition occur? >> i would like to invite jackson to with tndc to talk about the construction schedule. >> we could not be able to commence demolition until we

have an approved permit >> isn't the appeal tonight the only thing in the way. >> that's correct. >> so we were to deny the permit, when would it begin? >> at the end of the february is the target. >> thank you. and second hypothetical question this is for you mr.ervinvich and council and the expert. your dream home was suddenly appeared at 24 next door and you have it move in during the month of february, would you allow you and your closest loved one to live on that site during the demolition of 2550? >> not being a expert on environmental consultant, i do trust my very highly esteemed consultant.

i would, i would not have a health concern, maybe i would wait a couple of months until the noise died down, but i would feel safe. >> is would like all of three of you to answer that question. >> i would have no additional concerns with respect to the demolition occuring. >> for what it's worth, i would say that i would move into the house in particular of the opinions on the expert on toxics that assured that the levels of pce are commonly found in urban redevelopments sites across the country and throughout the state and across the country. >> thank you. >> okay, question from vice president lopez.

>> this is for the a pel apartment. they told us that this is the last chance to determine the source of material. examine we're hearing from you that you're pretty competent that the site is not your source. can you tell us, what is the basis of for your contention that you're not the source and how does that compare to other similar projects that you worked on. >> sure. >> one more thing. >> go ahead. >> how would you react to that characterization as the last

chance, this being the last chance to determine the source. >> so with respect to our site being the source. i think there are two main issues at hand. one is when pc e was actually used and when the site was identified as a cleaners. there is very little overlap in that time. the possibility that that pc e was used during that short period of time is low. the second is, when we look for a source of pce, we're looking for concentrations in the hundreds of thousands to millions. we have relatively concentrations here up to 1500, relative consistent across the site and typically we see a bulls eye of up to a million, 5 million per cubic meter of pce and soil gas. especially in this aoek colling and the area has not been disturbed for a long period of time. so we would expect to see even

if we are not exactly on top of where that release occured, we would see it at great distances, much higher concentrations. and again that contention have respect to the source is agreed on by the pce, they see a in a several meetings that and they also said it in writing. >> thank you. >> thank you, we will now hear from the planning department. >> all right, good evening, again president swig for the planning department. as you've already heard the appeal before you tonight is only for the permit to demolish the existing two-storey building to allow for 100 percent housing project.

however the new construction permit has not been issued. to provide 90 affordable dwelling units and 18 parking spaces and 90 bike parking spaces exempt from ceqa review. a february first letter from the planning director and director of mcd also provides more background on this project and where it came to be. per zoning interpretation, demolition permits are not approved bit planning permit except in limited circumstances. the construction new permit were both approved at the same time by the planning department of august 17 of last year, and then the notice of final

approval was also issued on the same date of last year. the demolition permit was subsequently issued by dbi on november 18th of last year and because existing does not contain any residential uses no approval were required to approve that demolition permit. it's my understanding that the new construction permit is in its final stage and may be issued in the near future. and the process for reviewing is essentially the same foresight and building permit which is permits are submitted to building inspection is flagged for may require approval and it goes through that steps to in this case receive approval and have approve from dph and give final approve from dbi and dbi is the

issuing agency. the appellant does not raise any issues related to the planning department. as already noted, relevant city and state departments are very well aware of this project and a lot of project has gone into this issue. and the issues will be issued at a later state of development when a new construction permit is issued. but i will differ to my colleagues in dbi to provide more information to those specific issues. and as a mentioned a substance control is in attendance to answer questions. approval of subject perm pit and all applicable requirement

and therefore we respect that the board not grant the appeal and approve the demolition permit and that concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> president swig. >> i'm going to ask an obvious question for the record. >> if this was any building sitting on this site without the discussions on what is under the ground, according to planning, this is a slam dunk? >> sure. we usually move the perm pits. >> so you would have no other issues tonight if, we probably were not be here if it was not potential pc e. >> from my planning department, perspective, probably not. >> thanks. >> sure.

>> commissioner trasvina. >> so the environmental issues are with other department and not with the demolition process? >> so, two parts to that. because this is an sb35 project it's exempt from ceqa review, that does not mean that there is no environmental issues related to the project but it's not, the those issues are not reviewed under ceqa. so this demolition permit does not require any ceqa analysis before the planning department could approve it. as will be discussed by my colleagues, the environmental issues that are being discussed tonight, have been under review by dph and by the state. >> as for planning, the environmental issues don't

matter? >> it's not that they don't matter, because ceqa. >> so they do matter? they could be poor or great environmentally, that's not for you to a pine in. >> i'm not saying that they would not matter. i'm saying that there are other agencies local and state that authorize those issues instead of planning department. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> matthew green representing the department of inspection. the pirment buff to make way for a new 7 story building with 90 units. this permit was issued on november 19 2022, after review.

i've asked ryan casey of health to address the concerns and i'll have a few more comments. >> good evening, i'm kevin and maher caseworker for the proposed development at 2550 irving street. they derive from 22 a and 22b. reviews demolition permit as it relates to our limited role under article 22b. submission of a plan is required.

if sensitive reaccepters are identified. if a project is less than half an acres in size or there are no sensitive receptors near by, the plan does not need to be submitted. with enforcement provided by the agency issuing the permit for the work. the site of the project is less than half an acres in size. health station on the demolition permit was permitted with the comment of na. was correctly note thating a dust control plan was not applicable. having said that, to the snp which the site plan which was

addressed in the program. the maher ordinance under 22 a requires characterization and mitigation of hazardous found in soil and water. proposed development at 2550 irving site through a clara agreement. the maher program differs to dtsc, a state agency and reviewed and approved all submitted items that were applicable to article a. our program continues to work closely on this project as well as other projects in the city. also my program manager veronica, and they're available to answer questions.

specificked related to his project and demolition activities are not covered under article 22. thank you. >> thank you, we have a couple of questions. one from, president swig and then commissioner lemberg. this ising directed to whoever, your associates or standing by. first and for most, how often are you brought in by dbi for an opinion on a location that may have been a dry-clean error impact and what is the protocol when that happens. >> i would say sites that have formal dry-cleaners that have

historical use are common in the maher area. so when the applicant a ploys for a permit or grading permit and they're plan to go disturb 20 cubic yards or more, they have to apply to our program. we look at the site history, if it includes dry-cleaners which is common in san francisco, we would ask for samples dmending on the sample, we would ask for a site mitigation to occur. i would say it's a common sister cal site use. >> and how many of those on a percentage basis get a red flag that goes up and says, uh-oh this is really really dangerous? and a hazards. >> i would have to get back to you on a specific number. >> maybe one of your associates may have that answer as well. >> yeah.

is this a dangerous site and does the department of health have any significant concern about proceeding on demolition or building on this site? >> i would differ to dtsc who we have differed environmental clean up authority to. then let's change the question. is there any anticipation that the department of health would take on this site as a dangerous site which would was cause great harm to immediate neighbors upon any action taken on the site on demolition and

certainly construction? >> i would differ to dtsc. >> so as far as dph, this site is not of significant concern because if it was, i would, i would kind of expecting a an answer that we're really concern that this site has possibility for deep problems that would harm the citizens of san francisco, especially those next door in the neighborhood neighborhood. that's what i'm hearing that dph is not concerned about. this site as a threat to the health of immediate neighborhood and neighbors. >> would i say that's a

character characterization. >> that's all i wanted to hear you. thank you, i'll pass it to commissioner lemberg. >> thank you, my question is not terribly different but i, what i'm hearing now is difficult tibl department saying this is not our responsibility. and also saying that we there ising a regular tory agreement and we're passing the buck on this. is that always the case? whenever there is substances, does dphs differ. or does do they have jurisdiction over this?

>> i would say in this case because there was an existing agreement when we got our maher application, we differed to tdsc also given that there is multiple cases on 26 and irving street. as an example if there was a development, we would take the case. since there is a near by dry-cleaners, we would ask the applicant to assess any risk to those tenants. we would still be seeing the over portion.

so to answer your question, if there is a state. we did receive a site management plan that were in addition to dtsd requested. so things like soil management procedures, worker health and safety. those were included to satisfy our requirements. so it's not that we didn't do, we didn't do anything related to the case, it was that we requested. >> what i'm really struggling with everyone's testimony tonight, i hope you hear my frustration and i've heard similar frustrations from my fellow commissioners here. that we're taking the facts presented by the appellants really seriously.

and we're not being presented by any evidence that contradicts the evidence. we as a body 'em baoud with some authority, are looking in a holistic manner. and i'm frustrated with each city department saying this is not our responsibility. but i can't, i can't not stress enough that this is all the city department's responsibility is the safety and well being of the residents of the city. that is the prime function of the government and we're all sitting here trying to get to the bottom of this and we're not getting answers that satisfy this curiosity at all. i don't usually get flustered like this. it's really frustrated that i'm hearing this over and over again. and i look forward to hearing from the tsc who has the

primarily, you know, involvement with the oversight of this project. i i hear people frustrated with how city government always passes the buck. i feel like we're seeing this in action today. to hear that our involvement in this is limited to the this little tiny sliver of this plan, is baffling to me, that's not a question but i'll pass to commissioner epmrer. >> thank you, perhaps this is a question by the tsn, hopefully you can answer. we heard that the pce concentration that's are in the, you know, high hundreds to

low low thousands mid-1,000s are high. we're heard that they're in the 100 thousands to millions. what is keshing pce concentration. >> i would say that this concentration at the site is common for other similar dry-cleaner cases. >> okay, that's--. >> there was a concentration in the millions, especially if there were multiple parties identified, our department would seek out the state's assistance with their resources to assist us in making sure public health is. >> so common that could be concerning and not concerning. >> what is the concentration.

>> it's hard for me because they're rich base. i cannot tell you a specific number. that number is what we look at first to screen in at a conservative measure sites. so, we would take a closer look at that but we need more information to make a risk base determination. these concentrations are in multiple of pslss. >> thank you, that's my question. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, i appreciate your testimony.

i'm not offended by the differenttions take over for the state's for the local or vice versa. in this case, though, you do say that you would you would differ to the state in part because the state has other open cases of concern in the immediate area. and that suggest to me that migration of the chemical is significant. i'm not the lead agency for all of these environmental agencies. our jurisdiction is for proposed development. >> although we're tracking what is going on, our concern is

that they satisfy the maher requirement and as a note, the building permit we have completed the house station there. they're in compliance, until following completion. that's specific for article 22-a. >> so dph's absence of concern not that you don't care but you don't have a care of these levels.

>> that what you expect to receive if they were not below the threshold? >> are you saying will that azim lar nature. >> yes. >> some we have duo mrik ant volunteers to do this.

we do receive those although we're not requiring them. >> in my letter, we do show dust control. >> so the size of this project is not it isn't just positive for your review of, of of those issues because they submitted something that you would ordinarily expect. >> yes, something that is not required but it's appreciated that they submit it. yeah. >> thank you. >> mr. trasvina. >> i had a few more comments, can i finish my statement. >> sure. >> so it should be noted, that this is a demolition permit.

this addendum is also reviewed by health and that's where the sole concerns will be addressed. material will be removed prior to demolition. abstained in november 8, 2022. this abstain this permit was a required permit issue. there is also a requirement that they will be disposed off properly. the recovery plan or ddrp will be administered by the department of environment. dvi believes this permit was issued properly and recommends that they uphold the permit. >> commissioner trasvina. >> my question goes to the permit itself, i read earlier

the language regarding article 20 and it says certain building permit may be issues and where applicable where it completed site mitigation. is that language applicable to this permit. >> this is an existing permit. so this language does not apply to this permit. >> not to this permit but to the permit to build the 90 units. >> so by that time, we would expect that the permit to have certified site mitigation. >> correct. >> thank you. >> and that permit under the final fire department and dpw have to review the permit.

i would say within a couple of months, we would be here again. >> president swig, do you have a question? >> certainly are en siteful of how long we'll be here. >> based on past experience. >> based on past experience. are we going to hear separate testimony and presentation from the gentleman. >> no, if you ask him questions and we're going to go public comment. and i'm not sure how long he can stay here. >> he's part of dbi. so if you have questions. >> i would like to address some questions to the representative from dtsc.

how many laundry ex dry-cleaner opportunities have you been exposed to? and what would have been the issues related to dry-cleaners and replacement of those buildings and pc es and things like that. >> i don't have that information. >> off the top of your head? >> i have not. >> i would love to chat with the gentleman or representative from dpsc please, is he available? >> he's on zoom right now, he's available. >> can we spotlight him. >> is see him on the screen over here.

>> you can put him there besinger handsome guy. >> how are you tonight? >> doing well. >> fine thank you. can you tell us your level of involvement in this case? the depth of your study, the depth of your knowledge and findings related to the safety and protection of the citizens of the immediate block, neighborhood and region, please? >> absolutely. i'm the project manager for this site, the cluster of irving street sites related to this project. and my involvement started last april. so about 10 months. i'm staking over for the

previous project manager. and i have been reviewed, very well caught up on this site. >> can you tell us about this site and the level of your concern, your findings, and your attitude towards the level of threat or or risk of, security threat or risk of health hazard to the immediate neighbors? the block and the immediate subsequent neighborhood? >> absolutely. there was a response plan submitted that has been approved by dtsc and that was followed under the claire

process to answer your question, there was attitude site for this parcel and that site characteration, based on the levels that we noted is very low risk, it does not, it is safe does not pose a hazard, that does not mean that the 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?