>> okay. good evening and welcome to the february 22, 2023 san francisco board of appeals rick swig will be presides joined by jose lopez. commissioner lemberg. commissioner vocabulary venal and commissioner eppler and john will provide with legal advice. at the patrols is the legal a cestant and i'm julie rosenberg

executive director we will be joined by city departments presenting this evening. dan cider with planning. tina tammy department za and representing the planning department of matthew green. chief building inspector. chris beck san francisco public works. [inaudible] program manager for site mitigation environmental health and d ph. ryan casey with d ph mitigation program. jot guide lines are follows. turn off or silence electronics so they do not disturb proceedings no eating or drinking. appellates, holders are given 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people affiliated include comments within these periods. members noted affiliated have 2

minutes to address the board and no rebuttsally time may be limited to a monday if the agenda is long or there are a lot of speakers. parties are given 3 minutes each with no rebuttal. you will get a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. modify a permit or determination. if you have questions about a rehearing the rules or schedules e mill staff at sfgov.org. public access and participation are of importance to the board. sfgovtv broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we'll have the ability to receive comment for each item today. sfgovtv providing closed captioning for the meeting. to watch on tv go to sfgovtv cable channel 78 tell be rebroadcast on friday on channel 26. a link is on our website.

now public comment can be provide by in person, zoom, go to our website and click on the zoom link under meetings or phoneful call 669-900-6833 and access code: 812 3302 2294 ## sfgovtv is broadcasting and treatment and drukzs on the screen if you are watching the stroll or broadcast. to block your number dial star 67 and the phone number listen for the public comment and dial star 9 qualify raising hahns so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in the hearing had it is your turn you may dial star 6 to unmute. you will have one to 2 minutes. our legal assistant will provide you with a warning 30 seconds before your time is up there is a delay what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the

internet it is important this people turn off volume on computers otherwise well is intrefrns with the meeting if the participates are attendees on zoom need an accommendation you can question the chat to alex the board's legal assistant or e mail to sfgov.org chat cannoting used for public comment or pregnancy. we'll take comment first from those who are physically present in the room. now we will wear in all who intend to testify. note any member may speak without an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight. raise your right hand and say, i do after you are sworn in, do you wear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, and nothing but the truth.

them if you mean are not speak put your speaker on mute. we have a long agenda and expect a lot of public comment du want to limit comment to one or 2 minutes. >> recommending 2 minutes. 2 minutes at this point. >> okay. thank you. item one is a special item consideration and possible adoption making findings to have teleconference meetings section 5493 subsection e. we would need a motion to adopt. >> move to adopt that resolution. >> is there public comment on that motion. raise your hand. >> i see a hand raise third degree is for the first matter. du want to make comment on this item. she put her hundred counsel. i don't believe well is comment. on this motion vice president

lopez? >> okay. commissioner vocabulary venal. >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> this carries 5-zero the resolution is adopted. item 2 is general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak within the board's jurisdiction not on tonight's calendar. is there a member who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda. raise your hand. >> okay. i don't see any public comment. we'll move to item 3. commissioner comments and questions. >> comments and questions? move on. >> okay. we are now moving on to item 4. the adoption of the minutes before you a possible adoption of the february 82323 meeting. do i have a motion to accept. gi move to adopt as presented.

>> okay. is there public comment? raise your hand? >> i don't see any. on this motion vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig this carries 5-0 and minutes are adopted. we are moving to item 5 appeal 21-116 doctor pritam subwar wal. appealing the issuance december 15 of 2021 subwar halt a notice of cancellation. requested by dbi due to the commit to require revisions. demolition. de demo 3 story sing emabatement of first floor in existing garage. second floor and living, dining and kitchen in bedrooms and bath room. these are permit upon 20 lefrn.

1101. 8065 and 201925 give the demolition on december 7 of 22 upon motion by swig the board voted telephone this to february 22nd the parties could submit brief and review the plans that were submitted to planning department. we'll hear from the appellate, mr. doctor subwar halt you have 3 minutes. i want to thank the commissioners for supporting the butterfly ankle project. discussed on december 7, 2022. without your help. i would not be here today. thank you very much. this is coming from the heart. if there are no butter notices

pollinators there are no fruits there are no seeds. there are no green plants. there are no oxygen and no food. and there are going to be no children, grandchildren and all the people. because -- they give us the food. it is our responsibility to take care of them. which i have been trying to do for 13 years. this dream started a long time ago when i was a child in the him layace. 500 acres of land. trees and full of butter notices i chase the butterflies and i have the -- when i came to san francisco, about 30 years old, i saw the beautiful marineasm i

had just gone to berkeley to talk to my faculty friends. and i said i want to live here. i did come here, i have been living here for that long time of but at that time there were butterflies. millions of them. we must provide the food so the butt are notices with lay sxags make the bebs and the cycle continues. upon since then i met

[inaudible] lee. 30 seconds i want to do it. then i met mayor [inaudible]. he [inaudible] thought everybody has been heard and tina find one of those permits for me in 2012. that's not where the story ends. the story ends in what we are going to do now. 13 years gone. and -- the correspondence. planning. >> that's time. and the guy who want to dot job. >> thank you, doctor we have a question from president swig for you. >> doctor, thank you very much for your testimony. and -- the spirit of your testimony is deeply appreciated by all of us and we than your inupon tent is positive the purpose we are here today is

simply to ask 2 simple questions one -- did you provide new and revised plans to the planning department. in response to their questions? and -- have you reached an agreement with the planning department according to your view on those plans. >> i got -- e mail from tina. and they mentioned the 4 points to work on. we have worked on number one and i have a photograph of that one if you see. and what were the floor points? it was -- in tina's report with the sent to me. do you have the report on the 4 points you mentioned in your letter. planning department will have an opportunity to responded. >> i will ask her to go over them. i will ask them.

>> thank you very much. doctor. we appreciate it. >> you can be seated now. thank you. >> all i'm saying. your time is up. >> you can be seated. >> no your time is up. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. . good evening president swig vice president lopez and the board. i'm tina tammy department zoning administrator. 245 marina benefitted is single family in rh1 zoning district. construct in the 1931 the property is known historic resource. the appeal's for the cancellation of demo and alteration permit. as asked the appellate in the

planning department submitted briefs in advance of the hearing the department's brief provide an over vow and the time line and responding to the issues raised in the appellate's brief. i will not repeat the information but i will provide a sum rear. to start here are photographs of the property. first is an arial photograph. showing the property at 245 marina boulevard. it is on the south side of marina boulevard across the street from the marina green park. second is a bird's eye view. of the subject property. in an insane photograph you will seat owner's residents next door at 255 marina. >> here is the third photograph

take up the street view you will seat subject and the owner's current residents next door. and reviewing the plans for 245 we have been cleared with the owner that we are not looking at his current residents for design queues that property does not contribute to the historic district. the next slides are design proposals submitted to planning over a span of 12 years. >> >> here is upon one version. here is the second. here is the third. fourth. a fifth.

and the latest one is the one in your package that is attached the department appeal brief. despite efforts in countless time check letters and phone calls and meetings and site visits the owner failed to make the nez changes. to date the proposal features too tall and over sized and the front facade is not compatible with the historic district the department is asking the board to deny the appeal and put cancellation of the permit. >> thank you. we have questions from president swig. lect berg and trasvina. i asked the same. since our moting on december 6, were there new plans provided or were the same as previous? the last was december 7th the

last set of plans were submitted to the department was december the fifth. >> nothing new which was the director request from the body was to revise the plans and have a discussion with you to revise them to bring them in within your purview behalf is code, et cetera, correct. nothing has been done. >> the latest comments we provided to him were based upon the plans submitted december the fifth and those are in the brief. >> since this time and since your comment, nothing has been revised on his plans. >> maintained that your position which is the this development does in the fit in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. aside from a few more details the big over arching umbrella is these plans don't fit. they have not been change since

we gave the ask and gave them one chance. is that the bottom line. >> correct. >> thanks. >> commissioner? >> thank you. >> thank you. my questions are follow up to president swig's specific low regarding the january 20 letter sent by christopher may in your department to doctor subwarral. this institutes a plan check letter that was dated january 20th. and i did note that the letter says please note at this time we are not asking revised plans to address the comments. that -- sentence frag am -- why was it the planning department's position that doctor subwarral should not address the, in the plan check letter to have the

opportunity to update it? before this hearing? >> twofold, first the permit is suspended it is before you no longer with planning we get the comment letter as a courtesy at your request to provide with the latest department's comments those are a reiteration of the previous comments in the last 7 letters. >> okay there is not any significant differences with the january 20th plan check letter and previous plan check letters or say the most recent one before january 20th. it is the same thing. does not comply with man planning and not compatible with the neighborhood character. >> and did the december fifth plans that were submitted did they meaningfully address the department's previous concerns about or that remember brought up in plan check letters.

why there were changes. the features remember reduced but not enough to comply with the code. there is some minor change that does address over all the remaining that issues are still with the project. okay, thank you. >> yes. >> thank you president swig i have also benched communication problems. between san francisco residents and the agency. a their. and now i got another one which is my communication difficulty with the position of00 autocity. i was appropriated to understand from president swig who asked whether anything new was submitted. and you said, no. he was told, no. to commissioner lemberg. and -- it sounds like the

planning department was says don't submit anything and the correct and your response was, submit it to the board not to the department. and -- wondering really, why there is -- sort of a difference in expectation. my expectation was -- that doctor subwarral and the department was try to work out a new set of plans to meet after 12 years meet a level of planning code -- satisfaction. if you could address what you thought we had done after the last hearing and perhaps reconcile these things for me. >> thank you for the question. december 7th hearing the department had in the had a chance to review the plans submitted 2 days before this hearing. i believe the hearock the 7th

you wanted the department to provide the updated, current list of issues and comments to the owner in and that's when we did after the hearing. that was the reason yet item was conditioned from the december 7th hearing. and in your conclusion and in the written materials submitted by the departmentful it is states the officer top pen house and other features over sized and don't comply with planning or design guide lines yet doctor subwarral in his presentation to the commission states that the roof person have been minimized height and stair and elrirt and penthouses minimized urn the 10 feet and the trellises reduced from 8 to 6 feet. so -- can you explain the difference of you -- he says he made changes and -- you say they

are inadequate? >> the size of the top features includes 2 sets of stairs elevator. or larger. initially. than the latest december the fifth plans and still are larger than what the code would permit. code is specific when would be allowed over the height limit to no more what the building code requires. no one whether we have the plans the floor plans but i have that and can put that up? to demonstrate and show you the floor plan of the roof top. it that's the roof top have been an issue for us. it go not meet with the planning code. and we asked them torous to no more required by the building

code.

there is an upon difrns of view. he has in the. >> that's correct. that has been the pattern the last 12 years i don't know how to explain temperature >> that helps.

>> okay. >> thank you. would with the department of building inspection like to weigh in. is there any public comment on this item. raise your hand. i upon don't see public meant. so -- commissioners the matter is submitted. there [inaudible] would you like to start or not. >> i think i have not seen enough to support the appeal. in my mind i vote in favor of denying the appeal. >> mr. trasvina? >> thank you, president, swig i agree i don't see the change material have been made to meet the standard says required. >> commissioner lemberg. >> i concur i appreciate the

reminder why we continued it in december which was 2 months ago and some number of meetings ago and that does not match up with my recollection that it was just to -- allow the plan check letter to be issued as planning did clearly and to review the plans submitted prior and -- it is based on that model on the further amendment of to the plans and with that i would support denying the appeal.

we are move to item 6 the appeal number 23-002.

athanassios adirondack property 3822, 18th street appealing the issuance to mjsf, llc of public works order remove a tree with replacement with the 24 inch box tree it was in good condition with leaning stems and poor location the existing tree will conflict with the footprint and bay windsosis. removal will allow group housing 207502 and we will hear from the appellate firnt and i'm sorry if i pronounced your name wrong. >> thank you. president swig and commissioners thank you for hear thanksgiving female. i'm athanassios adirondack i have been living at the property

for 13 years with my family. i will present a summary of our appeal arguments it is premature to remove the tree until we have clarity. the project may never get built. the developer stood before the board of spierzos march 15th of last year and testified the 6 story version of the building that they were proposing to build [inaudible] and this was when the interest rates were at record lows and the housing market was in better shape the developer in the meeting of the board of supervisors testified they cannot build it as simple they have been lobbying the community development office to force the city to approve the 6 story version and there is not consensus on the issues. so the city has this down size version approved the state and developer want a bigger one we

have more than 50 neighbors opposed both forms this is building they are filling with tech dorm this is is likely to be litigated and dragged out. well is no reason to cut down the beautiful tree until this is settled. we heard many voices that the new tree will take a long time to prowse the benefits of the mature tree. we would not want to see this tree cut down and developer deciding how the market and the legal situation is different than a couple years ago. within the property and moving up on something else with no resource for the cut down treech the 3,000 fee of condition of the remove is cash. the department of planning public works meant let process was riddled with errors we had to reschedule that the neighbor's were not notified it

was included in the neighborhood associations or never notified you not the conscience requires additional corrections and such the dpw is supporting the appeal for different reasons. there is no urgencyo this matter. we request due process and board uphold the appeal recline removal until agreement what the project will be. and until the in permits were upon granted thank you very much.

at 383218th stroechlt under state lawsuit permit is mandatory our clients participates under protest the city is prohibited from holding additional public hearings the

city is prohibited from disapproving the permit under the housing accountability act does not pose a threat to public healing or safety. community development agency issued a notice of violation in relation to the handling of the project. we urge the board to comply with law and dismiss the frivolous appeal. turning to appellate's contentions proper notice was not sent to organizations. and dp w confirms there are no organizations interested in this tree removal permit. does not represent organizations and not have standing to acenter claimos behalf of third parties. does not comply with tree perfection they are not applicable to removal permits. appellate is sgras grasping and

not interested in protecting thisistry. the frivolous appeal the their's third appeal to delay and derail a density bonus project provide 19 units of housing. the appeal should be denied. supports removal calling the wrong tree in the wrong place they forgot to assess the in lieu fee. we don't believe a fee is required the permit holder is ready to make a payment in the adopt a tree fund. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. a question from president swig. wroo you heard, thank you. you heard testimony from the appellate that his big concern is a tree is -- done away with before a project has any confirmation of going forward? would you have a problem of --

if we condition the issue of issuance of a permit based on your final building permit. or demolition permit. >> the tree or the approval of the project occurred and this is -- have you been issued a demolition permit or a building permit. >> not at the time. >> my question is, how would you foal if we conditioned the issuance on the permit on the issuance upon the issuance of your demolition permit or building permit? the permit holder is seek to remove. i asked a specific question would you like to answer you can pass does in the matter i'm asking a question. would you minds if we moved

forward and issued the permit to remove the tree conditioned on -- your receiving a demolition or a building permit, yes or no? >> we need to check with my client general low we would oppose such a condition. why thank you. >> we hear from the urban forestry. >>s. good evening. concerns. chris buck with public works. i will pull up a power point. bear with me a moment. while we are pausing

commissioner lect berg has i disclosure. >> during the speech i need to make a disclosure. the appellate in the matter did contact me and my role at pedestrian eureka valley neighborhood association in 2021 asked whether we would take a position we declined one way or the other. and never did take a position i wanted to state that for the record. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. and before i get in a few specifics i wanted to go over the actual tree subject of the appeal an avocado tree on a private property in 10 feet of public right-of-way it is a significant tree having same protections as if the street tree this is the tree. it is in the very confined planting your. and i'm sure when planted years ago it was planted without a lot

of thought about long-term maintenance of the initial resource. here it is last summer filling out. i do i'm going to suggest this we discuss the condition of granting approval based on the project approvals. i do want to points out we might be in 5 years where the project not approved and new owner we might be here again in 5 years i want to point that out and explain why. this is a very large stature tree. small and going to get large and larger. another image taken last week. additional damage from the root system of the avocado tree. looking at google street you see how quickly the tree has grownful in february of 08 it is a green out the window. few years later same july 08 it is filling out. looks reasonable here it is left

week temperature is only going to get larger for kicks i was at stanford university with a colleague and we are doing birding and looking at his trees he prunes and saw this 1 huh human year old avocado can you take a photo of that i have a hearing this week. i say that by just saying we see this as a fixed state of vegetation this is not the right tree in the right place it is the wrong tree in the wrong place. natural resource managers we point out well is conflict here with this site even if it is not developed. we dpo however typically condition approvals when a rope of required permits. that's not a bad idea if the project does in the move forward well are assurances there are protections in place we don't want to see a tree remove exclude a project not move

forward that is a reasonable condition inch will not get in the details in defending our process or processes was add hereed and followed. the one thing that did help during this process review is the urban forest inspectors saw the site as a reason replace am location the tree of equal value. and when we lose a tree in private property due to construction. we are keeping track of our planting cites. we lose the planting site permanently. we need to assess the 3 thousand dollars loss for that tree. just like we did a few months ago 3312 clay had we lost a tree due to garage come driveway installation this is consistent with when we have done in the past. i apologize to the applicant for introducing this in our own brief. to be consistent with how we

handled similar case we are losing the loss of this tree which is 3 thousand dollars it would be higher if in a better planting location but we have to reduce that value based on the poor placement within the site. that said, i know that in previous cases we have the only other way to come back to fix this would be reissuing a 15 day appeal window and we are back in a couple months. what public work system asking this would be a way to do it. is to approve the appeal. with the continue that the appraised value assessed the way that public works typically does. and if you wish to add a condition on receipt of all required permits that were open to that. i think this we could be here in 5 years again it it is not a great place.

i want to asurety public we are protective of trees. but i also want the public to understand and the reason i point it out in my brief there are other planting locations if there is a sense of loss of greenery there are ways to mitigate that collectively. i really see this as about development and not the tree. we did a thorough analysis of the appeal and submit third degree so we can -- make decisions and move forward. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> we have questions from president swig and commissioner trasvina. >> so i got 3 -- questions one. we are talking about a tree that will be a problem one of these days anyway. it is is the wrong tree in the wrong place and crossing my minds when i hear this testimony about you know well 36 inch box will take 35iers to grow big

enough to make a difference and i look at that avocado tree may be you should consider planting avocado trees we are comtakes long. i digress. so -- this tree will be a problem. but this has nothing to do it is a problem today has nothing to do with taking it out today because it is not a ficus tree with weaknesses as you point out regularly. okay. second, in assessing the value of it, this is a big tree. has a wide base. why is this not will this be appraised on the breadth of -- the size of the tree. and the assessment was with the

ucsf case a couple weeks ago. >> same process international society of horticulture the landscape appraisal. you do it base on trunk diameter based on the trunk the mass of the trunk 4 and a half feet above grade temperature is with international and national group of experts. species and growth rating, how long tell take to contribute to the public well being and so. it is the same process and -- it it is surprising. it really vers by species. you really ding it on placement and like. so that you are not if it was a place in the middle of the backyard the value will be greater. because tell have a longer future. so the lack of sustain ability in placement dropped the value

of this. and we tends to be reasonable with our estimates. we tend to we have yet to have anybody don't have people that come in belowous appraisal. >> and -- i was going to ask but i mine as well. how many street trees will that enable on this block? a guess? >> the 3 thousand dollars is really the e 85 lent over one street tree. 1 and a half. so not many. it is surprising but the value is only 3 thousand dollars. >> yes. >> the question i want to affirm is that you are in agreement that we can -- we can alay the appellate's distress by congress the 2 the issuance of a demo or a building permit.

and the street the tree will -- stay alive at least until that point i'm not saying we can do that and we will have the findings i want to play the ground work for that po serb you have no problem. >> and manage that has been done by public works as a matter of course. it would be consistent with other decisions. >> this would not be a press den would be reasonable and customary behavior. >> yes. >> and conscious and deliberate. i get it that there is a value to the existing tree. i don't want to discount that. that would be a reasonable condition to have in there to assure the tree is in the removed without full approvals. i yield to commissioner trasvina. thank you, president swig. president swig answered and asked my questions. i want to note that this is yet

another week when you and your team are going to work over time protecting trees and people. the safety and then i speak we appreciate the work of your staff and the team and protecting trees and the people of on this tree, i like to look at the things over a long period of time. not the length of our terms of office or careers but overnight long-term. and seems to me and correct mow if i'm wrong you are saying there are however the development come out 6 or upon 7 stories never gets built. are there valid reasons for the tree to be removed. there are, the tree has to be pruned away from the building and the window. the base of the trunk is continuing to expand.

one image -- most vehicle consist fit in that garage. time the stems that get larger there will being difficult in accessing that garage due to the growth of the stems of the tree. in the height. the -- the top corner of a car. so -- it is going to be a problem for that site. and will be a problem soon. >> modification that you issue suggest in the materials provided for in lieu fee and a 24 inch tree? >> correct. technically the appraisal value the 3 thousand dollars for the loss of the tree and a planting new construction triggers planting requirements if no existing tree in this set become they would be required plant 1, 24 inch box tree as part of new

construction. the condition we seek to adhere is remindser we need the appraised value of 3 thousand dollars to be consistent with how it is handled similar cases. over in 20 years. would upon it seems 2 options. this tree -- come down at some point. and it is goneful or -- it is the removed under this proceeding. and another tree go in thes place. and as well as the fee. in terms of upon canom and he trees which would we be better off and -- 20 years. >> the better scenario is the replacement tree location for the site will be in the sidewalk. it is wide. well is recommend for the

required replace am tree. so we are better off with the street tree at the curb. this project triggers. without that there is no the homeowner could offer to plant a replace am tree. long-term we are further better off with the street tree in the public right-of-way that will be the responsibility of public works after 3 years of establishment. i think the current tree in place is going to continue to create management problems. and we are better off with the new street tree at the close of the project. >> thank you we will move on to public comment. can someone shut the door. thank you. anyone here for public comment? raise your hand. anybody in the room here for

public comment. i see on the zoom . go ahead. you have 2 minutes. good evening i'm robert i'm a resident of district 5. believe the appeal should be denied. this appeal should not be happening. the hearing should not be happening under senate bill 330 the city is limited to 5 hearings on this project. and that number has been eclipsed. the city should have deny third degree appeal without going to a hearing. city is and as there trasvina stated the city received a notice of violation from california hcd we have a hosing element by the board of supervisors.

the of currents attorney saying it cannot be happen and someone saying the same thing. obviously the neighbors are upset. your -- i would suggest president swig suggested the permits -- tieed -- um -- construction of the site in that

the tree be taken out and -- until that time. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the caller who's number end negligence 25 96. michael naulty go ahead you have 2 minutes. >> i would approve the appeal and with conditions president swig mentioned thank you. >> and i want to say that -- this is a tree permit hearing not a housing hearing. when people call and talk about housing they are in the wrong venue this is a particular tree permit. thank you. >> thank you. further public comment on this item. raise your hand. i don't see hands raised. we will move to rebuttal.

we will hear from the appellate first. you have 3 minutes. there diacakis. since then and up until mary connolly died the tree was maintained and they appeared be in a condition in and out of this location. since the public experience taken over the ownership of halot. the tree has received no maintenance that we have been able to abjure. it does not seem right that the lack of maintenance by the sponsor count as an argument the tree should be removed. i note the neighbors on the phone wanted talk i'm not sure they remember able to be heard give her another chance, please. that's all i have. >> i don't see hands raised is

there someone who wants to provide comment. press star 9 to raise your hand. i'm sorry. we are going on to the mr. o'neil you have 3 minutes. thank you. quickly and this tree is an issue and planted in the wrong place, should be removed and state law does not allow for a delayed condition. hcd issued a notify of violation and expect the city to correct that and the project will move forward in the near term we encourage the city not to violate state law by imposing a delayed condition. now the department. nothing further? president swig i see a hand that missed public comment. do we want to allow that.

jot phone number in 2596, go ahead. you have 2 minutes. press star 6 to unmute yourself. i see you are here and your hand is raised. >> star 6? go ahead. >> hi. i'm lewis i live across the street and i have known mary connolly the diseased owner and i maintain the tree it was like between the time 2 photos like a baby and at the time you showed it now like 20 years. took a lot of pruning and all the things you were saying are true about it and it it is i beautiful avocado. and i understand all of the problems i want to say that they have in the maintained it so

that you see today is in the had it looked like 5 years ago. to make sure that is clear. and unfortunate to lose a fa ma too far street tree and i understand the 3 thousand dollars and stuff but typeset is a beautiful tree and if you take it down if you don't have to now. just to fill the is instead approved yet. thank you. >> thank you. why commissioner this is matter is submitted. >> start from this end first. >> i'm -- well i think that we need to go with the bureau of urban forestry's request we get the in lieu fee that is clear. i'm more torn on the immediate of the removal of the tree. if there were a plan now to put in a street tree that was not

tieed construction you know i -- would not want to condition anything. however, the replacement tree the street tree from the department is tied to the construction of the project done. i think that there is no problem in conditioning the tree removal per mir on the issuance of demolition or permit does not delay the issuance of a demolition or permit and allows the tree to exist until the time they are ready to cut it down and build the housing. >> commissioner lemberg. >> i agree with what commissioner eppler said. i think the 3,000 in lieu fee is reasonable. considering the breadth of the tree that has grown a lot in the last 15 years. i also think that conditioning on demolition perimism i don't

think they would demo the existing building without removing this tree it seems obvious to me based on the record. picked this up from clues and in the the speakers but -- obviously the is a single family home. that was owned by somebody deceased and then it was purchased after she died and the concern owner according to the neighbors not maintained the tree. and for those reasons i support granting the 58 based on the 2 conditions. >> i will i didn't know my colleagues and support the department's request of modification with the suggestion of president swig. thank you. >> before choim nothing i like to ask the question of our city

attorney. we have in the record that the september 21st of 22 letter from your office. stating the tree removal permit is out of the scope is that your position? >> as the board knows well is a screen or wall in my office between the attorney's advise the departments and the board of appeals. so i can say can't spoke for attorneys that letter is from the attorneys. i reviewed them i saw it on the record and agree with the conclusion. >> thanks. with that in my inclined to support the proposed motion. >> okay. with that -- reference to the motion i will make a motion

uphold the appeal and issue the permit conditioned that the permit not be issued until a demolition permit is issued. and also that -- the there will be an assessment of the appraisal value of the tree of at least 3 thousand dollars. i think that covered it. i think the permit the order would be issued but condition removal on the issuance of the site or demolition permit. >> yea you are always better at this than me. we don't want the tree removed until the demolition permit and the set number of 3 thousand dollars paid by the holder to the city's adopt a tree funds. had basis this motion made? on upon the recommendation of of

the bureau of urban forestry. >> okay. they recommended the 3 thousand dollars. uh-huh and they supported reasonable the issuance of the demolition of the tree based on the issuance of the site or demolition permit. >> okay. >> on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> that motion carries 5-0 and appeal granted with conscience. why thank you to commissioner lopez for asking this final question that clarified a big issue. >> okay. we are moving on to item 7. this is appeal 22-092 mid sunnet neighborhoods association verse 2550 irving street the issuance

on november 18 the tenderloin development of demolition permit. demo a 2 story office building this is permit for further consideration. note on february 8 of 23, upon motion by president swig the board voted 3-2. grant the appeal and issue the permit on condition reviseed require the 2 environmental specialists work together to ensure the public was protected by testing the property in the same manner that took place at 2511 irving. this motion made on the basis this thereupon is a president. a great concern for protection and health of the neighborhood and there were any other project including nons b 35 projects with similar environmental concerns not addressed by appropriate governmental agencies the board will have the same outcome. looking the forneeded to pass it

failed. upon were the board voted to continue to the earliest day. so that the represent from the department of toxic substance control can be prepared answer the questions that came up. this motion was made on the basis that the city agencies did not provide sufficient information to enable them to make a decision. and as a matter president swig you have a disclosure regarding? >> for all a law firm represents the parties in this case i have done business with the law firm in the past. but having done so, that will have no impact on my ability to rendzer a fair verdict in this case. >> thank you. >> we are going to hear from mr. preg shaw first.

welcome. you were begin 7 minutes but the department dbi yielded 2 minute and planning yielded a machine you now have 10 minutes. mr. shaw. welcome. and thank you for coming today. why i'm from department of toxic substance i will speak in lieu of mr. shaw. take your time thank you for being here today. why we wanted plug in our laptop. >> sure. while he is setting up i'd like to say that mr. shaw and the the doc notified at a very last moment for our previous hearing that they would be requested to speak. and there may have been an

indication that the testimony was incomplete. but i like to say that they were not begin sufficient time to prepare adequately. anything made might have been indicated that they were not prepared or had a lack of something we are a result of the last minute request for dtse to speak. i'm happy that they had 2 weeks to prepare. and i hope their testimony will clear up everything in this case and let us make a full finding. thank you. >> thank you, president swig. >> thank you.

you have nenlts. >> thank you. president and commissioners and staff. thank you for the opportunity to have our testimony you consider the appeal. the following staff will presenting responds to commissioner questions. some qualityifications for techical staff are here. i hold a bs in civil engineering and environmental engineering from stan ford a licensed civil engineer with 30 years of private sector experience and 3 years of regular experience on

hazzard substance and remediation. for this case i was unit chief over seeing the site from inception to october of 22 hi shifted a consult role to the team. during my oversight i surprised all project manager and technical activities under the irving street program. a california licensed division cho is with us tonight. as project manager. my colleague will answer questions related health risks. earned ms in pharmocology and toxicology from california davis and board certified by toxicology and 16 years as service as a toxicologist to the groun field program and safer

consumer projectses program of provides support in human health risk assess and relying on empirical data and evidence to inform risk management decision. doctor's involvement has been the lead toxicologist for the irving street program. >> this is am the mission statementful we have implemented this mission on over 700 cites. including 400 upon projects involving pc e throughout california. testifying regarding a demolition owned by the police credit youn. now owned by [inaudible] and plans affordable housing. site 3 in red in the center. i would like to start with the site in thes neighborhood and how this site fits in the larger

picture. consistent with state and federal law uses a risk based framework for remediation and other measures response actions. focused on individual properties this are contaminated. in california we work under a polluter pays upon principle. parties pay for sxapgz action and over cease the work it is stepwise. focus on understanding the sources and contamination and selecting a response action to manage the site to site specific risk based standards. this process takes years to implement. at this point we are in investigations of stages of progress with several properties boy now they assume the community and commissioners are aquaintsed with some of the

sites and can elaborate under follow up questions from the commissioners. why most of the cites -- we investigate have historical business prescription and may have used pc e. a dry cleaning fluid or solvent. as investigation prosecute seeds from the 2500 block of irving to complete characterization parties might be engaged. this will be a multiyear process in a phased approach. and potential cites may be added in the future. at this group we have not found a source nor a source of contamination there is vapor between the portion of the neighborhoods pc vapor concentrations on irving are low. compared to other cites that we over see in california. however, pc can cause cancer and

soil gases can migrate to building in vapor intrusion. the assessment press and response to community concerns, we implemented soil vapor and indoor air sampling to assess weather vapor intrusion is occurring. 6 residents at the north of the figure, have urn gone testing thus far. when vapor intrusion assessment goes to air quality testing we evaluate if there are consumer product source of pc in the house or the building. this is important because pc is still used in such products. we documented 51 products that are sold in cal dam that use pc e. product use can intrefr with measurement from vapor intrusion in residence denials.

next air quality in and out doors special look to see if pc is higher inside consistents with vapor intrusion. we confirm that subslab or soil samples of pc under the building exceed air concentrations. consistents with vapor intrusion. we assess risk using factors developed by the california office of environmental healing. for cancer causing chemicals screening levels one cancer case per million people over a 7 year lifetime of >> conducted rounds of air samplings in home this january conducted additional round of indoor testing to remove consumer products stored in homes prior to testing. based on air sampling including january of 23 results, we measured slightly elevated of pc at 2 homes and found results consistent with vapor intrusion.

based on january of 23 results we evaluated risked by the air concentrationless of pc and estimated the risk 2 potential cancer cases per million people over 70 year lifetime or less depending which home was tested. the mixture concentration on january of 23 was twice the screening level. we consider them to be low and not a risk. for example, the lifetime risk breathing out door air in california is several hundred upon potential cancer case per million people per lifetime the risk in the 2 homes is 1% of ambient risk breathing out door air in california we don't believe they need to take action but need to monitor for fluctuations. the elevated concentrations of the 2 homes indicate the need to

complete investigations and manage risks at the home this is is what we are doing. we will follow up with residents separately today to help manage and reduce risk at their homes. i don't are here to testify about the potential demolition 2550 irving. we believe the demolition will be safe for the community special not impede our investigation at or mediation of or other response actions for cites in the community. the site as a san francisco approved site management plan including a control plan upon includes to protect workers and the community from exposure to pc e during redevelop. including demolition and pc e soil vapor movement. the procedures include monitor and air controls the demolition contractors e mission controls

if dust or chemical vapors exceed health protective levels. upon provide over site during demolition to ensure contractor implements the defendant and vapor monitor and required controls. we are know it to investigate the site in to characterize the soil and other media to determine an appropriate response action using the risk based approach. demolition will not impact the 80 to investigate at the site, further investigation easy when equipment access without posed by the existing building. further investigation may occur boy a responsible party. the housing project. >> if no further clean up is performed. the new building with a combined solve an subslab system a common technology to ensure buildings

are protect friday vapor intrusion. we identified a dilute solve [inaudible] caused by past operation by 1 or more local accidents there is evidence to be low level vapor intrusion in minority of the houses test this was require further evaluationch >> thank you. >> thank you. they have 10 machines. that was 10 minutes. >> all right. would you like me to finish. continue and given the circumstances. >> um -- we continue to investigate the cites of the community and develop site asks actions and other site in the program the demolition is consistent with the investigation and will be safely managed under the approved site management plan. this concloods the testimony, thank you. >> thank you we have questions

from president swig, lemberg and trasvina. so, your testimony indicates that i have am me, this person here, high risk getting cancer walk down the streets of san francisco than directly frequently this project? >> correct. >> although. when you walk down the streets you do so vol tailor in our case we manage a lower risening level the exposure is invol tear but lower. >> so. blunt and direct question this is one i was trying to get an answer to. does this project present a clear and present danger to those people living in the area around this project? no, sir. >> okay. you mentioned that so -- last week you were not here. and again, my apologies they

were call in the at the last moment and we appreciate you came tonight with a clear presentation. last week we were here in public comment, there was a commentator listen we don't want to stop the project but have really 3 things that we want to get diagonal one, we want to revise the site management plan to make sure that this is moving forward properly. in your testimony i heard that the department of public health has a site management plan, and that plan meet your approval according to the dt sd guidelines in it is an instrument required under a city law. we will review that document if we find anything we think could enhandles the document we will partner with san francisco d ph and give them the suggestions.

>> the current technology for america pc e is what we would use and the action levels the city selected are consistent weapon what they would use. >> consistent weapon that request is there a site management pleasant answer is, yes. >> okay. second of all, there was if a mentioned there was a need for on going monitoring of the site. to make sure that escaping. vapors was not going to further expose the neighbors and that would be detected immediately and managed accordingly dihear that was going to be in place. jowl did. in the course of demolition e

missions will be monitord and satisfied it adequately addresses the monitoring. we don't in our experience and analysis tell not affect surrounding buildings the demolition will notes have vapor introugz in surrounding buildings either. the third pos we heard i think 4 if not 5 times both in initial testimony and in public comment, is this there should be forensic examination determine the sources of the contamination. and the gathering of evidence should there be a need was not stated the need but gathering of evidence should there be a need and forensic examination was redundant is that something this will be done as a matter of your

oversight d ph oversight or for the interest of the public if and when we issue the demolition permit should we include that as a continue for the comfort of the neighbors and the requesting public? >> in the first instance. pc e when released in liquid sinks through all media. we don't expect it to be present at surface soil tell is at depth we are in the seeing that in the sampling we have done the 40 some odd sample in soil on the site nor in the soil signature. we are not seeing the levels we have for a liquid pc e release. in our normal process we finds a source without a look at the surface soil or olds piping we are not here.

in this intans miracle cleaners was in a building demolished prior to 66. this it is a new building. the prior building was demolished. existing sue are pipes may have been. the existing building e rekt in the 196646 inches below grade. deeper than the typical demminglet of private sue are piping. it is unlikely post construction of that the entire priority sewer last roll for miracle cleaners is there. there may be piece of temperature our agreement enforceable with tndc requires they immediately notify us if they finds evidence in the project of contamination that poses risk to the partial that is a contractual obligation. secondly, in september of 22

meeting requested we be notified if sewer piping is found. so we can inspect this material if it miss to light. so they are required of notify us of oldareoeck strain staining, discoloration. we will be inspecting on our own during that process. in our estimation, any evidence that exist this is may refine the pc at the site is covered under the response plan in the processes. >> in your opinion, and imagine if you were livid half a block away, would you still agree that there is a need for further forensic review and the potential gather of evidence for the need or is that over kill in >> you live a half block away. >> i disagree. i think that demolition will

assist us in quickly astaining which weather there are conscience under the building floor. you will be watching. why we'll be watching and don't expect this evidence to be damaged the demolition scope ends with the concrow they are not removing the soil under the concrete floor pad. >> thank you, commissioner lemberg. >> thank you for your coming back and appropriating the presentation we appreciate it. and normally we would not have you here but we appreciate your presence here. i have a few questions. the first is the paramount one and that is basicate you presented a clear and unambiguous plan for what will happen. but my question is when accountability is there to the neighbors for the investigation and our investigation in monitor

results public low available and if not why not? i will take the first part accountability. the legislator tasks us with certain responsibilities. those are set forth in upon starch and guidance we have management systems where like managers over seat projects and make sure staff are conduct work proper leave. in addition to the normal we have professional licensure and obligations under california business and profession's code and ethical standards. beyond that, the legislatesor for the role we play decided that we are subject to form upon 700. we have to disclose our financial, private investments so well is no conflict of

interests with potentially wealth and he influential entities and lastly, we are one of the few that i than have legal penalties if we don't immediately respond to public health threats. prop 65 say fist we become aware of a condition of evidence that the public is receiving substantial harm, we are obligated to notify the public health official within 72 hours even over a weekends or we face 5 to 25 thounz in fines. conviction or loss of employment if convicted of a felony. i'm aware of few classes of civil servances that have that extra obligation the legislator instituteed make sure we were focus in the our mission. >> understood.

i will be miles an hour specificment are results of the investigation and monitor results available for example through the california public record's act requests? >> yes. anybody can request those. and our standard project approach when a document is final it is available to the public on the public site. and any citizen can subscribe to the online archive and they get e mails when new document is posted on the cites of interests to them. a citizen account subskroib to be notified when documents are post to the 4 cites managed under our urban street program. >> thank you that is useful information. i want to skip a bit here. you mentioned that the pc e levels under this site are low

compared to elsewhere. vague elsewhere. but the appellate in the brief i hope you read. say that the residential guide lines this far exceeds that. how do we as a body reconcile. the different messages. >> thank you. >> we will bring doctor to talk about the screening level portion of it. at the end of our presentation here the last slide there are some of our slide 8 the final slide. there are hyper links community updates and meetings here. if you want to consider them. and in some of the meetings we present typical levels we see at upon dry cleaner cites. they are 1-thenned the highest

levels we see. and will -- i gusville to take one professional word against another. i can show you examples of water board efforts to characterize pc e releases across upon neighborhoods. to give you a sense of how high the levels can be. but -- yea. that's -- >> i still have a question regarding the residential guide lines themselves. i'm not relying on the appellate's expert i'm relying on guidelines that are set by law. >> the question is, to the extent we are exceeding strooem screening levels. is this acceptable or unacceptable >> right. >> doctor? would you like to step in and provide context for the board?

>> the the residential screening level is not the standard it it is a point of departure which we engage in the investigation process. and additional characterization. so the level at the one and 1 million cancer risk base on the mathematical model deliberately designed to over estimate risk. we are using toxicity from environmental hazzard assessment which approaches toxicity assessment more conservative than federal epa and token with the assumptions in the model, we tends on screen inassignment the levels are so low that we tend to engage in will a site investigation on with the

knowing there could be exposure path way and acknowledging we might see false positives. i take exception with the word, standard. it it is a starting points for forming whether we enengage in the site investigation process. >> thank you. next question. . this -- what -- of early on in your presentation you mentioned responsibility for the payment of clean up efforts being on the party who is responsible. how do you rescue thai sthiel with the fact this is from dry cleaners dpr 75 years ago or more. does it pass down to the current

property ordinance or remain with the state of the likely long dead morn owned the dry cleaner? how does that work? >> circle liability, the federal framework that our state law blsd off of -- puts liability on land ordinance. and -- operators. who had an operational 96 us and down stream corporate genealogy. we can also finds insurance companies that had relevant policies with pollution linocaine coverage active at the time of release. that's the general mechanism when we issue an order we doll research with law enforcement type tools to look at past ownership. records and asemble research a

history of operational, operators, owner and their success sxors interests and sometimes through subpoena type instruments obtain evidence they have qualifying insurance that can be triggered to support this. a combination of those mechanisms. upon when there is risk to the public and no one can be found we have mechanisms to deploy state resources and execute that work. or use qualified contractors we keep in place. >> thank you. and as follow up what role the police credit union who owned a parcel a voluntary clean up agreement. for that separate percent they'll does not seem to be

active? or followed anymore this . was voluntary with the [inaudible] whether they stance on that agreement? and i would assume as an attorney, that does not disappear combht property owner silence the property. so -- >> it is enforceable agreement but voluntary and in the intans of the. credit union it has been terminated. in some instance w when it is terminated but additional work needs to be done we will proceed with negotiating a consent agreement rather than a voluntary agreement or,ing unilateral order. we can't comment if we have a unilateral order in process. >> okay. thank you. >> my last question for now

is -- from the advantage point is there any harm in allowing the neighborhoods group to conduct their own monitoring and testing at the site during demolition? before, during and after demolition? >> no, i mean -- i think they would have to they individual to follow have site access or from the owner. we have site access part offer agreement. otherwise they valid to conduct inspection from the right-of-way. and if they got site access they valid to have theed safety training under the federal and state hazzard waste operations training statute but a compliant inspection on the part of the public you know -- helps

regulations. team sport and it is great when we have citizens science--ing unit's mission. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina? >> thank you. commissioner lemberg and thank you for coming today. i will say that i am comforted by your testimony. this evening. of but i feel it would have been better at the previous hearing i don't fault the gentlemen who spoke at the last hearing i believe the city agencies because every agency represent testified said we dover dtse. and they should have understood. the depth of the issues that the neighbors brought to make sure you were here in order to perhaps upon help with occurrence.

i'm comforted but i want to with hold judgment until i hear from the parties. one thing you just said about the voluntary agreement with the prior police credit union, i did, not hear the last part. you cannot comment if there is further action in >> dihear that >> if we are in process with -- an enforce am action or the preparation of an order, they normally don't comment on those. like -- you commenting when an like a criminal investigation is under way. >> so we don't comment when we notoriety process of developing an order. >> gifrn the limitations perhaps you can or not answer this question. from the order, from twenty 21,

it states that employees and customers all a jayce not vicinity of the site are at risk is that the view? >> that so the tools dtse has are voluntary agreements. we have an order that compel an investigation. but if we seek to compel investigation and remediation we have one type class of order. we have afternoon is order and [inaudible] order the federal standards for danger which the orders are base side had you read the guidance and case law low bar.

have the conscience dissipate thered? for to you say, voluntary agreement is off? but are the conditions better than they were when the voluntary agreement was reached? >> there are 2 cites. >> i understand your order says

drentsz in the vicinity and neighbors. we are talking about the same peopleful i think -- right. i knowledge if you read the language carefully standards is release or potential release. it it is -- it is also potential release that in our estimation is what is still the status. we have done a first round investigation including soil samples and vapor samples and have not found anything we consider a source area or an area that has acute exposure to occupants to residents in area. >> earlier po president swig you indicated that to all of us the average person this california has more exposure to cancer than the people who reside in the 2550 irving area.

>> correct although the out door air exposure is voluntary. i heard that. >> yes >> is it cumulative or can you distinguish the average person the people who live there are average people in cal dam they have some level. between the initial lives in the your and the person that does in the live in the area who has more exposure to cancer? the last national study from the american cancer society 2017 to 19 the lifetime -- or -- the rate which an average male in the united states gets cancer at some point in their life is 41%. for this time period and 38 or 39% for women that is 40% is low in california not really.

is composed of many factors. people who are the residents and neighbors of 2550 irving and people who are not. whop has a greater risk of cancer. >> difficult to tell we don't know the other lifestyle risks or expose urs they have from other aspects of california life. all other unknown. all equal. why incrementally, am the local residents and employees the doctor may want to provide context on this. >> risk is based on exposure. and that's why we do on going air sampling at the residents north of the former site. so the indoor air concentration

dictate for pc begin that is the comtanination concern in the path way we are evaluating assessing risk for and aiming to manage, that is what will be defining the excess cancer risenings will be. for as long as it is above 1 and 1 million po serb cancer risks. they will continue on engage in the investigation process and monitor process. i'm not sure that answered my question anymore than what you said i will continue i'm not trying to put moiz in the shoes of the residents and future residents of the affordable housing. i'm concerned because of not being -- clear.

however, you stated that california has stricter standards than epa in terms of what the numbers are. >> miles an hour conservative in the toxicity levels. californiaed call something toxic risk more than the federal government would? or california would begin to consider it at a lower concentration level. >> tell meet epa describes it likely carcinogen? it is known. you want to comment on that and the target organs. why the state of california and epa identify it likely to be car 7 ginnic the study and value is

the same today based on liver tomb nors mice. the cal epa toxicity division the office of environmental health, took a more precautioner and conservative prop to come up with a raul that is 24 times more strict than epa's value. concentrations at the off site resident this is we have evaluated external soil vapor, federal epa would not continue their investigation over there they would be screened out. because california adopts more strict values to include them in on ramp them in site investigations for potential risk, we have on going investigation here. >> the board of supervisors passed a resolution in 2022

urges in coordination with d ph manage with a comprehensive investigation and clean up approach for the pc e contamination on the 2500 irving street block. based on preference for state's per minute nan rem dees. is what we are seeing a coordinated investigation you feel you met that? >> absolutely. absolutely. the complexity is that again, we are on a principle. we have to engage an rp for each peeves property and an order with them and cost recovery from that individual entity. so, the nature of the framework the state legislator requires us to recover costs and requires us to manage rp's on a site

specific scomplefl provides for a number of parallel path. so most of the cites when you should we term health and safety code chapter 8 and provisions to encourage redevelopment of sites that have brown field blight or stigma of such blight. low income housing project qualified for this legislative path way the state legislator created. that has a slightly different framework. and different types of agreements. subject to the frameworks imposed by the legislator we are managing this as one site. report to the public as one site. all the sites share the same documents have common communities updates and meetings. a common project team and inlts great and sing thyself the

information across as we investigate out ward. it is complex. and very easy to say, it should be one program but doing the best we can subject to the framework provided by the legislator. >> you got in the area of yes but. i hope you would say yes but are yes with a lot of contranlts that are there. yes contrained boy legislator. i'm not trying to blame the answer is in the yes this is yes but. >> yes contrained by legislator and state law. >> we are under drients as well. the september meeting doctor or chief was a part of. at that meeting -- we were

provided with minutes i'm not sure who prepared the minutes may be supervisor mar. i.ed to -- ask you to if upon they are on the same page. she stated or the machines state that she said she is bring resources to the wagz we are here to address your concerns and responsive. [inaudible] said she wants them to push hard to guest what they are asking for. they want to be sure to implement the right prop to protect the people in the neighborhood.

residence devons are slightly dmfrns cancer risk consistent with that? thank you for the upon opportunity to speak to you. i'm n k and glad to peek to this. >> you can move the microphone downful does that work better. great. so -- that is where we are. we have the science hainformed our perspectives and the additional data that was referring to in terms of the additional indoor air data that was the data became available and the team will share with the individual residents shortly, i believe. that helps inform our perspective that new data does have what my team believes to be

accurate representation that is help nothing terms of the primary intugz opposed from material in the homes. otherwise and it is [inaudible] what the earlier numbers indicated. we are dedicated to be sure that the people in the communities are safe. were and we are take all the actions we can in our regular processes and scientific informed approaches to do that. and i gis say, yea that's my intention for us as a team i can speak on behalf of the director as well. i thank you for that. the express commitment there was if there is new information they

want to hear about it and if there is unexplained identification chemicals or anything in the properties that is something triggers the owner's requirement to inform you. thank you. commissioner lemberg. i have a few more questions. i have a follow up comment for commissioner trasvina. i want to make sleer we operate under the national contingancey plan in the code of federal regulations this is the federal framework for acceptable risks for hazzard cites. that's been around since the

1980's the law of the lanltd. originally the risk range in which we try to evaluate. originally congress said, no risk is negative 7. the early years they found that was intractable. we could not measure risk at that level. often well below backgrounds levels we finds from product and houses or backgrounds cans tragzs. circa 90-94 congress changed the level from 10 negative 6 to 10 negative fourth >> and the federal statute says acceptable risk is up to 10 to the negative fourth 1 in 10,000 lifetime cancer risk fist you have one chemical with one exposure path way which is the case here. mull pull chemicals and multiple path ways it is the range you

manage. that's the fdz standards and has been so since 1994 or earlier when epa drafted it was important they sent it to congress to reconsider and potentially veto temperature in california we can push more than that. that is the basic frip work the law is we don't aspire for 0 cancer risks for hazzard contamination. it seems that one of the themes in the questions is can't we treat a site to get to zero risk from pollution. i want to assure you that is the federal standard that the in addition livid under since the 90's. california tries to push it a little lower that is an accept fraiche work under state and federal law. >> i'm not looking for zero risk. but i want to know upon i want to hear what the risk is.

and the you federal government state the city. the neighbors may have differents definitions what is acceptable. buoy think we need to establish that there is that risk. and second, you mentioned about single path ways have we established that there is a single pregnant way for the carcinogen? i thought it was uncertain whether from the on site old dry cleaners or the other ones? >> all the data you financial feel free to chime in. we collected a number of soil samples zee not found levels that are a problem in soil. we got 2 grounds water samples those samples have pc below the california drinking water standards. we have no exposure path ways

now to pc other than soil vapor. the f by indoor air temperature is one chemical one exposure path way currently. >> thank you. >> doctor, du want to add anything to that? >> to claire fight exposure path way is inhalation we deal with a volatile chemical. it is low contract drink water are not exposure path ways that are would lends to exposure to pc the inhalation path way we are dealing with here through indoor air. >> okay. flfrment thank you. few more questions. i wanted circle become to something you said earlier. i looked at the order that you were referring to from the.

>> cleaners october 2021. you said that the standard is urth a release or potential release and i want to correct that it in the document says the standard is release or a threatened release a big difference to me. between potential and threatened. and so my question is, the this is regarding the site00 autosite across the street. which i understand is a parking lot. which is in the you know there is nothing going on there i don't think it is used as a parking lot. why would a parking lot have reached the level of a threatened release but cross the street, which is about to -- there is a proposed demolition and reconstruction does not reach that level in i'm not a lawyer. i can send you epa documents

that are really going through case law and interception of the stoornsd which we build the orders. one example i recall from the case law is contamination that is in an arctic setting above if he werea frost. if this per minutea frost were to melt that would move down and contaminate drinking water. drinking the ground water is clean. there is a threatened release if something changes those conscience. earthquake. will melt. a potential threat could be by a condition in the future. i think that it is as much as i can give you for how my understanding of epa's guidance and the case law that bracketts that. my question is not epa but why there is a threatened release at

this parking lot with no activity on it? >> the threatened reis at the cleaner site. >> currently a parking lot. >> no, sir it is a 2 or 3 story building grounds floor xhshl with floors above. we investigate in the that building. drilled in the building shell. so it is an existing structure. over head. site 2 on the figure that is showing but an existing maked use building. >> site 1b is parking. site 1b is a site we are trying to engage the current owner on. >> understood. and i apologize for my mistake. we are reporting with planning the vacant lots go through entitlement to make sure

planning and everybody is working together to make sure a future buyer. what we are give you go the concern owner and future buyer we don't want them to be slipping throughout cracks and not characterized. trying to see who sign third degree order. this was signed. juliette, the branch chief. yes. is there kidnap -- do the any staff have knowledge about why this site that is not proposed no construction being proposed at the al bright cleaner site. why that has a threatened release. i over saw that order the party was not moving quickly enough. so we shift friday a voluntary

agreement to a unilateral order we had more authority to control schedule with penalties. >> sure. what was the factual finding. >> there is low level pc e on the site and therefore, potential low could be a source under the building and want to finds that if there is a source area we address it and prevent public healing hazzard. first phase investigation did not finds high levels at the site. nothing we consider a source that will warranty remediation we are not done we are having 3 phases of investigation. we have a work plan for phase 2 we near broesz. investigation there is on going. >> thanks. next question i want to ask is regarding a proposal the appellates brought. i don't feel like i received a

satisfactory answer 2 weeks ago. the proposal was to engage in soil vapor ectraction a method not been discussed tonight. why explain to me why that is not a good option for the site and why that is not the best option that is getting rid of the i understand the pc e source is not finally identified. but why -- it has been identified that there is pc e in the soil under irving street under the properties. so why is that not a good option getting rid of the contammy then? this will be complicated bear with me. a remedy for pc e. in a soil matrix like sands it

is permeable. [inaudible]. but no remedy in our framework is implemented until we fully characterize an area we know the source areas are. this is know old case study from the early 90's of a sister agency in california that you know characterized pc releases across the neighborhood scale. we near early phases they did vapor sampling above a number of dry cleaners most had no release not all releechls may be some. this is the first take away.

the second is -- we are oozed to in this figure you see the red cites other actual sites that release pc e. and they have shallow vapor concentrations that are much higher than the concentrations we see here. we call a source zone we treat notoriety red, in the gray. this site from levels we seen is in the white zone around the edges. may be in the gray zone. sve falls off with the cube of the distance. you have to really be close to the source area to remove it. one way tong about it is you got a camp in a forest. there is a fire and smoke. the camper wants to you take care of the fire go in with your

wart and spray the area air take the smoke away for a bit but never put out the fire that fire will generate motor vehicle and that smoke will diffuse and recover the area. our estimation. we could put a system, clean up the vapor under the site quickly. but when we pack it up and got plume is likely to restaep establish itself we have not treated or found the source your that is in the neighborhood yet. so, under the ncp -- so we normally don't apply a remedy until we find the source and the const. tragszs here other types we have coming off a system the end of clean up. it it is a lot of money spent to really clean up a small amount of material and may be not

permanently. we had an obligation on be cost effective to not waste the money. we had court case in california courts found that remedy was too expensive relative to when it produced. and i worry that that may be the case here. we could be protecting the neighborhood can cheaper measures that last long after a 1 sxragz have not found the source area and treating at this site will not necessary low treat the unknown source areas. it is premature to implement sve though it is a good remedy. we defer that until we found source areas where we address the neighborhood scale issues.

what i'm it is a good remedy. for a source area we have not found yet. >> and i heard you there may or may not be a source area on this block we don't know for sure. it seems likely there is considering the presence and both the chemical and multiple dry cleaners on the block? no. or -- i think that is a leap we might have a case where we have pc mix in the wastewater discharged through the sewer system 60 years ago. and liked and diluted on subsurface and aged for democracieds and nevermore find a source area that is a possibility. the levels are much lower than we are used to seeing at cites

across the bay area. >> if -- soil vapor extransaction not done until a source identified why is it not the duty to finds exhaust efforts to finds that source primary to allowing a major demolition to occur on a side of the block? >> demolition is almost a material from our perspective our investigation work and remedy work guess around buildings all the time. we treat on sidewalks. tree in courtyards. so -- the demolition permit is irrelevant to the neighborhood scale investigation remediation. y. we should not wait not guilty

source is found and can potentially soil vapor extraction if there is a source begin this substance and geology would be a good remedy. i believe that the appellate presented that the current plan in place is more expensive they than soil vapor extraction based on the site management mravenl shed light on the that has well. this site is a little different of the clairea framework for infield redevelopment in brown field areas or perception of hazardous substances and a stigma associated with the site. under the clairea framework as an affordable housing builder has immunities swon they don't

vice president to treat off site per legislation. they voenl to am institute a remedy protective to their occupants and had is the clairea framework we will engage others to clone the neighborhood or investigate toorndz but the responsibility legally is to protect their residents in the future. and they can do that by different means. they are not compelled to look at as a remedy and one could argue that you put in a system for a year and that is cheaper. but the system this they are building will protect those residence denials for the life of the structure 50, 80 ore 100 years. and any future release from the gasoline station or another accident that spills chemical in the sue teris a permanent protective remedy for the life of the building.

on a life cycle value analysis that is the cheapest way to protect occupants over 50-100 years and stop. >> we have been thelled repeated low me question is, assume whatting you say is correct and the residents of the new building would be protected what about everyone else on the block. if it is only if this remedy is designed to protect the -- residents of the new construction building what about the people behind it and across the street and -- elsewhere? >> that is the responsible of other responsible parties that we are engaged with or will be engaged with.

>> sorry. anything further commissioner lemberg? >> not at this time thank you. >> thank you. >> if i can -- perhaps ask commissioner lemberg or president swig sounds like we have not established that the plumes are [inaudible] we don't know whether we have not found the source. and we don't know where it goes. i don't consider this off the topic it relates to this location and action before us. >> commissioner from our perspective whether the

demolition permit is issues or they build the project that does not impede us from investigating the neighborhood remediating the neighborhood or other response actions across the neighborhood with other responsible parties. >> thank you. that is helpful. thank you. thank you. you can be seated now. we don't have further questions we will hear from the attorney for the appellates mr. wong?

floentss? right. >> good evening i'm lenny settleal director director for environmental over site and formy mayor of mountain view and councilmember there i'm south bay most successful advocate of affordable housing i have been advising the neighborhood for 2 years about the vapor intrusion path way. i wish i had more time to rebut that they said. i will go as fast as i can of the environmental screening levels that dtse and water board use for vapor intrusion of pc e and residents are.46 per cubic meter corresponds with office of environmental hazzard assessment

to 1 in a million lifetime cancer risks. neighborhood is asking for is the same level protection that many other communities around the state get. 1 in a million as an action level. there are many reasons why communities want that action level the fact that you got vapor intrusion. vapors intruding in your home. there are other reasons i don't have time to get into them now. what iment to say in terms of compare thanksgiving to other cites original the city and state all the neighborhood is asking for is investigate that you see at any other site whether or not it is subject to sb35. i question the plaintiff's exhibit of it given investigation this is have gone on since it was made. dtsc and the developer said you

need to identify a source area for clean up with do you an intim clean up you need to charge somebody and that's why they are concerned. the idea that. there is a source somewhere else in the neighborhood is the bull's eye [inaudible] lines in the middle the highest levels the outside the lowest. there is no other identified source in the neighborhood that is caused causing a sue are line to like in front of 2 dry cleaners. the first line evidence this isave source area. the fact it is in the the biggest source your in the state or city does in the matter. our release of pc e happened probably at both dry cleaner cites. so. this is on the left as a result cleaner site and the sampling there on the right the miracle site well is one sampling site

vapor site did not dot deep sampling. 2 lines use to determine a source are one on soil and perform higher levels in the shallow subsurface than in deep subsurface. a source investigation so we can move forward and get the place cleaned up. >> we have a question from president swig then commissioner eppler. thank you. the question is not for you it is for council. continuing of the line of questioning from the last hearing. the last hearing we i think i asked you we heard public testimony, we heard testimony from your expert and from you. i got testimony again public testimony today in writing.

i don't know how many times we heard it and -- you were asked and i asked to the development -- they rejected but the issues were that were needs to be a site management plan. correct? correct. >> there needs to be during immediately arch demolition should be a forensic examination? correct. >> correct. >> third, effective date of driven of soil vapor extraction plan to be developed. okay and those were the 3 things that we heard and you agreed, correct. >> correct. >> and then if those things were in place you said you would be comfortable. correct. why correct >> and they said, no. they said, no. i wanted make sure we have the

same story. tonight, we heard that there is going to be a site management plan that takes care of 1 that site management plan is to be managed from thes d. health but will be managed provide over site. soy that takes wear care 've one we will heard that there will be a vapor exstrakz plan to be developed from dtse. what we did not hear was i asked about today forensic examination. peoples but we did hear that that part there would not be a forensic but i heard that achieved through a forensic

examineification on going by dtse. what am i missing here? i have gone through 1, 2, 3. i wanted to establish we heard the same and you were okay. and wanted establish they did not want to hear about it and wanted establish that yes, we heard from dtse this all of that exempt the former forensic examination would take place. what are we missing to move forward to make you comfortable. now you but your clients comfortable? >> president swig the first thing is the site management plan there is a plan does in the say any of this it it is in the in writing the site management plan which was put fourth by the permit old in november of 21 does not have sxoil vapor collection. does not have any of this

monitoring. it is completely silent. the -- speak in the microphone. >> the site vapor extraction which now we are getting in the site permit territory. that is you heard dtse say the presumptive remedy to are full steam ahead they would in general like to have identified a source. you heard them say there is no hrm in having us collect the soil on site. they greed. having sve is dependsant upon the forensic collection. since the last hearing i spoke at elect with noorth remember

firm that has implemented the profit call at 25 compleven identified priority tier 2. hazzard us waste site. is this is the forensic pro call. either precludes or chills. they can help to facilitate the permits to drill and all of that. that is the entirety of when we

are asking for in this proceeding. to condition demolition on the collection of soil and vapor samples done at 2511. 99. i'm a little uncomfortable with not for a reason usualed the i'm uncomfortable this you think that there is a the site management plan is ambiguous because i think you said we asked for a site management plan and when we got was unsatisfying. is that your word? >> the site management. excuse me talking to council and i will ask you. site management is generic talking about a document that was finalized and

submitted back in november of 21. the site management plan does not address the to the level of detail or any of these the areas we are talking about. with the pc e and collective soil. dollar say vacuum under the miracle cleaners site 2520 i think this is one of the cites identified by thank you very much site one or two. 2520 is owned boy the permit horde. well is a like nobody took the samples that is where it is where we want to go and collect

soil. there is has acknowledged the a likelihood. and they don't know. than i don't know a likelihood we focus on a couple of the probes there etch that's forensic soil and vapor collection. so -- given this and there is a site management plan. would you be comfortable in moving forward with this site management plan with inclusion i tried to do this last week and failed. put morgue a motion that won 3-2 but takes 4-1. would you -- would you be

comfortable with the site plan that put forth by d ph with scrutiny with the assurance this there be a forensic inspection as you described? yes. i'm trying to move forward with important housing. we near a housing emergency. and theed neighborhood needs to be comfortable. so -- i'm trying to finds the way to allow them to move forward and -- with inspection. and the neighborhood to be comfortable as possible >> and amend the site management plan to incorporate what they did in our papers.

that we would be comfortable with using that what they did with 25 year 11. that's my questions. commissioner trasvina. thank you, president swig and along the same lines. there is a site management plan from the november of 2021. and 2 sections that i draw your attention to. 4.8 unexpected yours of contamination and 4 opinion 9 discovery unexpected under ground structures. in 4.9 if there are discoveries of enexpected under grounds structures w in the area must immediately stop until an environmental professional is contact and assessed the potential concern and determined the course of action. in 4.8 there is no requirement to stop work it says the owner

will be contacted qualified environmental professional and the agency notified to assess if sampling is necessary in mitigation is required. would a requirement of a stop order -- until qualify of environmental professional system assessing the concern special determined the property course of action is that close to addressing your concerned. it would the stantech plan has a specific protocol involving the use of canisters and involving multiple points of drilling. and collection and the use of a certified laboratory. all of those are essential.

demolition would assist them to -- if you look it's where they are now to finding a source. great. they are along may be 4? you know they are not there is more investigation to be done they acknowledges that. and there is more investigation to be done at 2550 which is our site including 2520 and this is the miracle cleaner area. >> i say we are talking about carcinogens and that identification to that within the soil should be treated at least as strongly as the under grounds structures. having a stop order and getting

in the details of what testing, et cetera that i'm surety experts deal with that. i would feel stronger with a required response. if well is contamination. >> this is in the like we see on tv they finds bones and demo a building. person who operates the back hoe will not know there is pc e in the soil. there has to be sampling. and that's what was done at the stantex site. we believe they will finds it in the jail they found it. was not there was no sampling on the site itself. commissioner lopez. thanks.

this question is for mr. segal. thank you for being here. you said in your opening remarks. sb35 should not apply can you give detail. >> the substantial order identifies the site as the al bright property and off sight contamination from the property we have a declaration from the geologist this he believes the contamination from al bright migrated to the pc u site that is plausible. they're have not fruven. if that is the case, this is the portions of the property are part of the al bright listing and should not be considered under sb35. i don't know how you reverse sb35 bulled not be applicable but more important based on left

time, when we are asking for is what is tip kelly done when you have a dry cleaner whether 2500 micrograms or 2 huh thunld micrograms. this is in the mountain lions. we are not talking about something to block the site but at a site whether or not it is subject to sb35. thank you. we will hear from the permit holder. you have 3 machines. >> thank you. members of commission. . repth the permit holder. when california legislator

adopted sb35 it had proceedings like this one in mind the purpose to remove discretion cities have to deny affordable housing as language as they meet the sb35 crip tear enthusiasm the planning department determine third degree is eligible for sb35 and to my knowledge perhaps for when we heard in the last few seconds that is not under disnewt this appeal. i have a copy of the letter to do anything other than reject this appeal would violate state law. i will turn it over to the environmental expert i want to request this this board take the obligations under sb35 seriously f. we have hope of addressing the housing emergency in the city not just for this and many that need to come after it, we need you to commit to

implementing faithfully and enthusiasticly the tools the state has given establishment thank you. >> there were questions i assumil get a lot given to the appellate i will try to hold those. a couple pointses. one, i put on the screen here the map that shoes all the investigation that has been happened on site. over head >>ef thunderstorm site is not big. it looks big when zoom in the it looks like it is large. it it is a small property. 250 by 100 feet. guidance says soil sample on 1 huh human foot radius if you mean were to put same numbers of samples we talk about 3-4. we have a lot of soil here and soil samples and the put quoteos here has said that based on the

density there is unlikely to be a source. also gone to say there is lots of other potential sources in this vicinity. when is trying to happen is holding up a housing development our site is the source and -- keep investigating. but as you see and we heard there are other sources. i think it is important to remember we're not conducting environmental review tonight we are determining whether construction permit can be issued. there are bodies that are responsible for environmental review that is not this board's job. as dave presented there has been a ton of characterization. thank you. time. >> not accepted by appellate. >> thank you. >> thank you. president swig has a question >> we are here i ask you the

same question. would you please we are noted obstructionists. smg somebody called us this. i stated and i cleared because when i say i looked at my fellow commissioners seeking response. we want this housing project to move forward. because we near a housing emergency. at the same time, do tom others you expect others do to you. golden rowel. i want somebody protects me from poison. outlook know what i will protect you from poison and the neighborhood from poison upon bestir can. golden rule. great rule. love temperature all we are asking is one thing. would you please voluntarily or make the same motion again.

we have. a formatted, structured study that will take identified a week and we pent 2 weeks wait you go wasted 2 weeks. to review properly and frenzically to give the neighborhoods comfort to do as part of the site management this study? would you please, tell us this will do it and off to the races, i think. >> that's all. one little thing. nobody is obstructings. councillor i'm upset with you you imployed we are obstructionists. i will go become to you. sure. >> one little thing. let us put it the site manage

voluntarily you will at this time neighborhood you will do temperature and we can move on. >> i think the issue here is one, there is only one issue. how they are they say tell tick a week and 20 sthoundz. one thing we have not heard what level will they accept. so that's a key part here. we have. iot approval of the dtse. we have the approval of the dtse and they say they believe we have done up in sampling and data does not show well is a source or signal of the a source on site and that you know oop00 wham that's the big things we are struggling with, how do we get to agreement? keep don't agree on the cost tell cost a lot more. drill rigs are expensive.

30 days for a permit with san francisco city law to get a permit from d ph 30 days for review. dtse review. 60 to 90 days and somewhere extended further. all of this because the neighborhood disagrees with what the experts at the state are telling them is that the site has been characterized and there is no signal of a source. joy will ask the same question. and dt stshgs e to confirm both what we heard the requests from the neighborhoods and the your points of vow here that's why they are here and one more week you know to stopping your project. from moving forward we don't want to obstruct it. we don't we want it to move forward we are trying to find a way. okay. just for the record we don't want to stop this project.

you hear me. i am ask that question. will you address it when the ask this of you when we have commissioner conversation on this. wisdom of adopting the so called sorry. santech model. how is this? >> thanks the end of my questions. i don't key see questions. thank you. we will hear from planning you have 2 minutes.

good evening president swig and the board. dan cider with planning i'm here on behalf the zoning add administrator [inaudible]. i don't want to belabor the issue i don't want to delay your deliberations i want to add a bit of color if i can to the conversation. we heard from dt stshgs e this is the w this they do routinely. planning and d ph and dbi partnered with each other and dtse as we do all the time to make surety project is built safely and the site is safe there is nothing oust ordinary here. commissioners ensure public safety and a full investigation and site management these are things built in the permitting and development process the project approval is under sb35 account for that. there was a reference earlier to

a letter earlier today from hcd. that letter offered guidance consistent from 2 weeks ago. which was that additional conscience on the project would go beyond aloud under law. the good news here is that additional continues are not necessary. they would be [inaudible] sb35 does in the truncate or limit the work of the city or state. 30 seconds. guarantee compliance with our safety standards and public health standards. at the end of the day the issuance of the permit was consistent with the comprehensive work of the city agencies we have confidence in dtse the departments at the state to carry out their work, effectively we urge you in the strongest terms to reject the appeal and allow this important affordable housing project to

move forward quickly as possible. thank you. >> thank you. upon commissioner trasvina? >> thank you. i had a question this may not be the right person to ask. come from the city environmental department. are you familiar with the precautionary principle. i'm not the right person to responded. why among our city agencies who are here can anybody talk about the environmental department's precautionary principle? upon gene wrote to us and says the san francisco department of environment strifes to reduce the impacts of chemicalos people and the environment the first chapter of the environment code. the precautionary in the absence of prove something is harmful of

the burden with the prowsetory prove it is safe. is it the view of the city that it it is safe here or that we don't have evidence it is in the safe? it is our view it it is safe would feel very well 100% confidence in work and collaborateeration. >> thank you. >> thank you. i don't see further questions we will now hear from d. public health. i'm ryan case wet san francisco d. public health the mitigation program. as the caseworker for the development at 255 zero irving

street i have been with the program since june of 2020 and worked in remediation consulting. the program authority from san francisco health code 22a and b. during the last meeting i described limited role to the construction related dust mitigation under 22b. since the project size is less than half an acre no site dust control plan was require exclude the health permit was completed with n/a. dust control must be implemented prevent dust from leaving the site with enforcement by the agency issuing the permit. bank account included a site specific dust control plan. which was approved by a problem

in february of twoochl the dust control plan. question field logs to ensure compliance. the ordinance under article 22 agives d ph over site for mitigation of substance in soil and ground water for projects in the area. although the project at 255 zero irving the program is working with our part norse ensurety health and safety of the people we serve is protected. program approved all almosts applicable to article 22 a. we are unaware of other counties in california require submission

of smp we have confidence in partners with their depth and knowledge and expertise available to over see the development on irving street and the other clean up cases on 26 and irving. in conclusion there is a press in place with d ph through the program to regulate the environmental compliance the process is followd and confident this public health is protected the case at irving street is not unique with the process we are following don't have concerns with the demlication of the bodiesing at the site demolition is not unusual and similar to other projects happening throughout the city. thank you. >> okay thank you. i don't think we have questions thank you for -- vice president lopez? >> thank you. more of a comment and echo some

remarks that -- my fellow commissioner made earlier. you know reflect back to the last hearing. and kinds of able to hear were the testimony -- after you spoke at the last hearing. and -- i think learning that they appeared kinds of on a subject to a last minute request i believe started with commissioner lemberg. i want to comment that -- this is the yours i understand this you know when you are collaborate ritting with the state agency that there is -- you know certain r & r's that -- are in place.

right? which you know may be lead you to -- defer questions to the dtse they are the most hand's on with the details. i think that00ue therein is an element of a pol interest for d ph to be they -- efficient communicator about the risk profile related the project. and you know i think it is very clear based on the public comment we received left time that people are concerned. and there is fear -- that has been voiced related to the project. i think it would help us and help d ph with the other policy goals which depend on the agency's credibility in the face of the public. i think it would help if even in

yours we may have a collaboration with the state agency, to be in a position to -- address those concerns. which you know they were i think pretty clear based on the record submitted before. the hearing last time. that's -- that's one of the areas when i been how this is developd and you know how we got here to a second hearing that is the yours we can improve. in terms of the posture that the d ph takes views of the public concerning that is expressed. i understand that again. there it is a scope and the collaboration has those you know roles and responsibilities

distributions. i think that -- just in terms of d ph and its ability to you know the end of day the d ph is you know who theress dentses of san francisco will look to. for the answers. and i think we could do you know a bit more even when we are working with a state agency to be able to have that kinds of concise explanations. i know you said, there is no concern and that was -- compel to people with my thinking and decisionmaking left time and continued to be. and i think we can do more in terms of how we address the concerns that are vocalized by the public. thank you. >> okay. thank you. the gentlemen by the door the

fire codes probability peopleful thank you very much. if we will hear from the department of building inspection than i have a minute but if you are here to comment can you lineup against the wall when you in up come up to the microphone and speak and after you are done take the speaker card hand typeset to alex to get the minutes correct. >> we'll take a break after dbi we will have plenty of. >> a [inaudible] break after testimony. 83 will hear from dbi for a minute and take a 5 minute break and go on to public comment. welcome. >> good evening president swig and vice president lopez. i'm matthew green with dbi tonight. i will be brief the permit before you tonight is demo the existing trushth at 2550 irving street. minimal and incidental soil

disturbance during this teenage of the permit application reviewd and approved by the agencies. the permit holder obtained the required job number from the bay area, air quality management district to asbestos survey. approved and issued properly and recommends the board denies the appeal andup holds the permit. >> thank you. i don't see questions. so and the members of the public we are taking a 5 minute break. >> fill out the speak welcome back to the february 22,

23 meeting of the board appeals. we are on item 7 this is appeal 22-092. we are on the public comment portion. given the late hour after 8 o'clock and the volume of speakers we have 58ate in zoom and a number here will be limited to a minute. go ahead. sir. i'm raffle lane i live a few blocks for 60 years i heard the objection when i receive aid leaflet the wrong time of peopled move in when they shamed them they changed objection to the heist proposal inform november of 2019 this neighborhood voted for prop erickson to build and the height. now they want to stop it because pc e is investigated. i attended the meetings where they said the project will not prevenn remediation it is bad

science and the demo what is before you does not increase the risk. 2 weeks ago the lawyer said what you decide they will be here appealing i trust them to deal with the pc e there say worse poison fear amongering remediate that by denying the appeal. next speaker, please. mt i want to thank you for declirg the destroyer to [inaudible] the housing cries the sun can kuz karngs the dangtory public health in this neighborhood was the meth lab that was exploded at 22nd. of this appeal is the same as

the 've cado tree. [inaudible] a resident needs. more environment hilsboro exercising similar loopholes for affordable housing i appeal to the commission on behalf of union brothers and sisters and housing to allow this project to proceed. thank you. next speaker, please. i'm from local 22. this project is a good project for us the support my familiful

good evening am president swig and board members i'm 99 i'm a represent for local 22 and applaud the city for addressing the housing needs with your support for the 2250 irving street will help over 100 people sexual assault the sunset district home. tell bring housing and create over 50 jobs hired through union general contractor providing them with retirement plan. i ask to you deny the feel ghet project rolling. >> thank you. we for the building of the housing development at 2550

irving. in the only this will bring housing but jobs for members paid a wage and medical benefit and retirement plan. and youry importance will work and hone skills to build it on time, on budget and safely. city construction and would not put residence den and workers in harm's way to build i project. i like the board to deny the appeal. thank you. heim hill i live on 20th avenue 5 housing down i bought my house in january of 79 and had bladder cancer in 2,000. my doctor asked i worked around chemicals i said, no. i don't understand how you got

cancer you told me nobody in your family had cancer it was a mist row until i found out the chemicals under the irving street propertyir believe this is how i got my cancer. and i'm like and you most people here i'm not against affordable housing or for the homelessipment to be safe before than i dig up. >> good evenings. board members i'm timothy a field rest with carpenter's local 22 formy sunset district resident the sunset needs valuable housing for low income i ask you deny the appeal, thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm john bark an i attended the hearing on february 8. i'm a retired teach and support

affordable housing and the construction jobs that go with it. i'm a neighbor in support of the appeal. specific low, when talked about the chilling affect. that was not caused by us it was the dwerp seek an agreement. including the clairea agreement and as our council said it would not slow down the project to make it safe. all we are asking for sorry that the conditions which mr. swig approached be adopted and the peel a moot case once the partners agree that a safe continue with safe test and the requirements we out lined are met. they are easy to meet it they do you have the power to compel [inaudible]. thank you.

>> thank you i live on 27 avenue. 2 house, way. i'm here to peek for everybody that could not be here. i hope you got the future of our kids. a safe environment for them to live in. the people against terror selfish. thank you. jake process on housing action coalition urging the twoed reflect the appeal to move forward with affordable housing project. i emphasize that 1700 letters voicing support and against the meritless appeal i hope you consider perspectives and naeshs in opposition i want to layout

what we know. 1, every state expert in the official has, firmed the site is safe. 2, the city needs more affordable housing and 3, we then and there this body does not have discretion to deny or curtail this project due to state law as california agency made clear in the all right you received today. we ask you cut through the riffraff and reject the appeal without delay. thank you. the speaker against will wall, come up. thank you. president swig. members of the board i'm ped remendez a field rep for local twoochl i represent 4,000 carp terse in california as a labor leader i represent part of i learninger coalition of working clasdz women and men. the folkers a fabric to the

economy. instrumental in the recovery. and the reason why i'm here tonight with understanding and agreement. >> appreciation of the caution and concern you expressed. i ask that you provide a path forward for this project. by deny thanksgiving appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. i live across the street from the project and i support affordable housing. that is why when the project and the opposition noticers came to light i joined because i wanted to make sure a prohousing voice was representative i was releaved others felt the same my dad worked provide afford am housing for over 50 years the idea the pc e is no worse as

anywhere else. than i confirm today is above screening levels. low risk is not no risk. and i want to say from tonights the results the first we heard of them i like morto independent to those. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm michael weiss i'm here in spchlt appellate. i live directly cross the street from the site. and i am apparently the only property according to those lines that is not part of the 2550 site but has levels similar. projected be similar to the 2550 site. i'm anxious because no testing done on mine yet. the thing is source gets bandaged b. fiemdz the source to dot work. if we don't dot testing we can't

find the source. if we can't find the source we don't know how to get vapor extraction to work. nobody is asking for a delay in the project. as far as i can tell. we are asking for appropriate levels of testing and therefore a moneys to get to appropriate levels of mitigation. and i ask had you grant -- >> thank you >> next speaker. >> hello commissioners i'm robert ho a property owner near by the property. san francisco needs to build affordable housing and needs to build it in a way that is responsible and does in the jeopardize public health. there is so much upon opstoigz testing the site. dtse admission they have not found a source area. why do they -- oshg pose testing a miracle cleaners.

the neighborhood has a reasonable request. we want the s & p modify to gift neighborhood assurance tell be done we cannot allow them to do it on their own. they have all the incentive to not finds the toxic contamination. there is evidence of -- if than i don't find it than i have no responsibility for clean up if than i don't finds it they have no. -- thank you. next speaker. good evening. thank you. for letting us speak. i'm joan. i live on 20th avenue down the block from the site. and i am for afford annual housing. i lived there since 1977 will house built in 1916 and has cracks throughout basement floor

and i'm total low terrorized idea of vapors coming up through the critics i'm here to represent 15 people had cancer in our neighborhood when can't be here to tell you how much they are concerned. i appeal to the board to vote to protect the health and safety of our neighbors. thank you very much. next speaker, please. officer with the appellate? i recognize you speaking on behalf the appellate last time you are not permitted provide comment. go ahead. >> okay. >> i'm marsha. i support affordable housing my children cannot live in the city they can't ford it. i get it. i support it. but my husband i doed a few years ago. my neighbor died a few years ago

we lived in our home for a long time. it is the long-term affect of course pc e not that it is anything will help magically. of the construction. if required keep residents safe what will keep those of us who live there safe? thank you. >> folks keep moving, please and yes. thank you. >> good evening i live notoriety project site 26 and kirkham i wanted reminds you we do have a letter from common sense letter from our supervisor joe engardio in support of the sxael mr. segal said our neighborhood is treated different low the testing are similar are treated different low than ours and public health needs to be taken

in consideration. why thank you. >> hi. i'm nancy lee. i have been a residents of sunset upon since 1970s. thank you for lynching. you are in a tough dilemma you can't force the developers to when we have because of sb35. the developer has to volunteer and know they don't have to. okay. so00 autodeveloper is responsibility for the building. but not to the neighbors. who do we call? thank you. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners i'm thomas and i'm a licensed architect and practicing from san francisco since 1982. i deal with the sizes of

bodiesing says. advocate of affordable housing sit on the housing committee for aia we are trying to get hozing sped up. there are things we have to take caution for. and public helling is one. so keep in minds our testing said 4 times of allowable levels 35 to 40 times the allowable level and at the al bright site 50 times the allowable levels for residential. so, please support a condition that adds to the upon site management plan to ensure this neighborhood safety. thank you. we are move to public comment on zoom will the call aren nothing 7059 go ahead you have a minute.

i see you have -- yes. >> hello good evening i'm li's wong imrepresentatives the sunset chinese cultural district. [inaudible]. earlier we submitted a letter in support of affordable housing in the sunset and for this project to continue without delays in the approval process. thousands participates and residents participated in the need's assessment which were, proved at sf plan nothing october of 22. the project addresses 7 of the 10 strategies. strategy limits the ways housing now [inaudible]. wee have been informed upon by the experts that the pc e contamination is in the from [inaudible]. we as the public were not scientists the panning demmic proven we need to trust the

scientist and their expertise i urgeow thouz annuals of sunset residence denial his have spoken clearly don't delay this project. why now anita [inaudible]. you have a minute. >> good evening i'mful doctor nita professor of emergency medicine and medical director of age friendsly emergency department. i'm a parent and live cross the street from the mroum i'm speaking on behalf myself you don't need a toxicologist to actual pc e is toxic. kapzing cancer and medical issues with vision and reaction time. the levels of pc e in the gas vapor and air will samples according to the testimony is 2 times the california screening level i take issue to federal

screening guidelines as a standards. the levels pose a risk. a clear and (danger to the future residence denials around the 2500 block of irving. thank you. iot caller ending in 5936. go ahead. adam. go ahead. this board is the last resort for natures 91 of my neighbors are against affordable housing i have vapor intrusion coming through my shower.

. headlight toksince are entering my home no mitt gigz is necessary. makes no sense if the levels are that low why do they need a vapor barrier next door it addresses the safety one building complete the investigation and clean update neighborhood. thank you. en nothing 5936. go ahead. enzing in 1023. go ahead. . hello i'm will celeste a neighbor in support of the appellate. i'm a health care professional and live near the area i listen

to the permit holder arguments and alleging low risk exposure for yous in the neighborhood. i finds myself remyself you of the numbers in the homes to the north of 2550 irving there is for you times the risening pc e in air sachs the sure let roll the pc e levels are 5 times higher than acceptable risk for exposure and the south side levelers 50 times greater. on top of the numbers my understanding that [inaudible] a snapshot and does in the look at the long-term affects that residence denials have been exposed and will be. as a health care professional i cannot ignorth science in the face delay provisions in the new legislation and neither should. thank you. jot number ending in 3309.

go ahead. i'm frank a 36 year residents of the sun and he oppose this appeal i'm not a geologist but i know about sb35 limiting the board's discretion and i know there is shameful lack of new fordable house negligent sunset. appellates made efforts to stop housing on irving this is another tactic. this is why it is expensive to build home in san francisco. the grasping at straws opposition is height and low

income housing and using demolition as a pretext. state and local agencies weigh in the on environmental concerns and the experts cert fired the health and safety of the proposal. less hazards here than if the project was never proposed. deny the appeal. >> helo i'm a residence devenlt 26th avenue. i want to make it clear to everybody who thinks the spate opposing the demolition. had we are asking for a condition to allow data collection for that we can be sure the residences and neighborhood can be convinced the source your is not under the

site the 2550 irving. to all my friend in thes youn we want the project. >> if it is the testing will say if it is we will have an opportunity to clean it up and keep the health of the residents save. i urge the commissioners to allow >> time. thank you. y i'm deb are murphy. i'm a low income senior.

i want to have it to beingic free what difference does it make where the source is if i get shot does the doctor figure out who shot me or where the bullet came from or treat me and save me. there are to beingins may be. we don't know. but clean update site and then builted affordable housing. >> okay. lee, go ahead. live in one of the 6 homes test third degree concern to me and my family. i have lived in this house and raised 2 children for 25 years. inotropics when you use statistic and scientific did thea to tell mow when my children and i robbery breathing unknowingly for 25 year system not a big deal. acceptable risk. complicate when the arrogance

and politicize amy hill's concern. all these make me feel dehumanized as a public school teacher i support affordable house nothing this process i thought my health matters just as much as the new residence dens that live in affordable housing. please, help us we need a collective to the say this is right to do help us. to determine the source to help us. to investigate the source. thank you. i'm christie i live 2 block, way from the site. main source of come from the [inaudible] principle in 2019 which improve the environments of the public. we need to use protection to regulate the funds with the

expectation. we need your -- the sb35 neighbors are help exactlies this board is the last to come for help. add condition test and clean the site. we support affordable housing but low cover off the to beingeck contamination of the site. thank you. paul. go ahead. i live in the sunset on jouda street and love to seat demolition permit allowed to proceed. that's all. upon sunset mom?

[inaudible]. me and my family including my kids live in one of the houses close to irving i'm here in support appellate i think it is grit there will be more afford annual housing but i wish they would portray themselves a great neighbor and listen to us and try to put themselves in our situation instead of thinking about the project costs that are funded by our tax. last of time it. [inaudible]. cancer that me and my families are subject to. i hope the board will see the last resort to be heard and the neighborhood to get testing done at the site. that is aural my neighborhood is asking for to get picture and the remediation and diminish theingly cancer risks for xus our children. why thanks.

win fung. go ahead. hello i'm john. >> let's hear from karen chang first. why i'm karen chang a residents within 2 blocks of the site i support appellate i'm concerned about the condition tammy nanlts they are affecting residence denialses and i don't want them to affect the future residence. listen to the public concern and require an action plan be

reached. patrick wolf. >> great. i'm patrick scombofl paul's next door neighbor i donated thousands to san francisco and i volunteered hours i want this project built and have no objection to height units or anything else. i want the building to be done safelyism known paul for 15 years hoe is smart, reasonable and tremendous respect for the work hoe has done on his own time temperature is frustrating for those of us who live in the sunset attacked for motivation when many of us who want this project built k testimony built safely it is frust rit to seat lack of cooperation and the other agencies. and finally it is counter productive if people would work

together this project would be built more quickly as well as more safely. thank you. my name is winny. my house on 19 avenue i bring in there since 1995 and bring my grandchildren to sun and he eat at irving. i'm a residents and i need to be clear everything should be really safe for us. and i feel like they have have more about -- how to protect our health. i feel like our healing is number one if they don't build there they can build somewherel.

i feel we are residents are first health is the first number one there. i feel please consider we are -- people there. not like housing. of course i -- agree to have more housing but our healing. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm gene support the appeal until conditions can be added to the demolition permit to protect the health of the community and the environment. there hen debate about possible harm. one way to vow it is through the precautionary principle states first do no harm. and despite what you heard earlier. they have not shown the demolition site is safe.

pc e in the soil could be in or close to the demolition site. the cancer clut in neighborhood. the site is across the street is on the cortepz list what more is needed? please adeny this demolition permit. thank you. let's move on to the phone numberening 5936. go ahead. >> eileen with speak the police

credit union and enters in the aville taer clone up agreement. this begs the question why would the police credit union enter in i clean up agreement am if there is nothing it clone up. dtse deteriorated i voluntary clone up agreement. this begs the question why would dtse deteriorate aville taer clean up agreement if there is nothing to clean up the clean is up in everybody's best interest the city will own the property with the project experience having the grounds floor lease. thank you >> 9177, go ahead. >> hi this it is [inaudible] [inaudible] i support the project without delay. noted in the previous speakers and meeting the objectives i

hope upon dozens who can't afford to be in the city. and understanding issues of to beingic remediation and believe it is taken sourcely by department of public health and the developerch appreciate the support project. [inaudible]. >> thank you. richard? please, go ahead. i live on 20th avenue close to the site. i support. public health occurrence should not be swept under the carpet. [inaudible]. [muffled].

i think stipulate healingy, help us to protect our neighbors, thank you. jenny wang. >> i'm jenny wong. i am a neighbor of of the

project. i live on 21st and irving. i have been a renter for 10 year i urn to you denight appeal. worked with both of environmental over site agencies over seeing the your to make sure well is a plan in place to protect the health of the residents and starch. the agencies told the communities including msna the pc e contammy snagz not from the irving site we can't make a development responsible for fixing the roej nal issue. we cannot allow oshg ponents to weaponize vipiral issues to stop affordable housing the city is required build it in high opportunity areas. i hear in the upon sunset real lost affordable housing. thank you. time. >> thank you. >> jonathan, go ahead.

>> sorry about my audio issues earlier. i want to say how outrageous how much time we spokened this issue when this is an appeal that is obviously is imlegal to approve and violate sb35 and would violate the housing accountability act and delay and make it harder to build housing playing out for so long. it is such an it is a negatively side for things to be built in san francisco i urge to you deny this appeal. >> thank you the number ending 5060, go ahead.

i thought i spoke birch will speak again. yes, you did your hands is still raised you can't speak againism will not i'm sorry thank you lower your hands. okay. the number ending in 3309. go head. michael quinn? hello? >> part often me. you are not so clear. can you speak? yes. thank you, everyone. i think -- the most part are every issue has been touched on

i would remind -- every that the city of san francisco is under close scrutiny from the statement if there is another delay or decision on the project, which there should not be. the attention -- from possible low attorney general or another state agency the board of are supervisors has expressed they dislike the scrutiny and i don't think [inaudible] would like it more then and there they do. thank you. 7201 >> can you hear mow? >> yes. >> i'm charles air san francisco residence den cull to urge to you support project and deny the

patchy we need afford annual how does and we need you to 39 the that the experts are saying about this the project. how much appeal and delays are we going to suffer through for the one project one of many to solve our housing crisis. thousands of units we need built x. cannot if we are series about meeting the housing goal and making the city an open and affordable place for everyone. 3309, this is your left call. 7413, go ahead. press star 6. i think they are gone now.

>> i assault and battery another hand raised. >> i think there are 3309 i asked that person 5 times that person left. that ends public comment and commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i'veed like to get the dtse represent up here to ask a few more questions i'm sure i might be joined by other commissioners. you sat here and got president -- hearing twiechls

even though you have been here once. come down it come down to fear. fear that people will get cancer. and come down lus that near place. if you don't like the senator you with row them owl. same with the board of supervisors and the mayor. that's what the country is b. tonights the focus is on and i again will state i would like to move this forward but not at the risk of a commune i want to believe i live 2 blocks away or 2 houses away from that site that the level of seriousness i take it on. it come down to 2 you heard the testimony. the neighborhoodments it proper low tested. that seems to be the bottom line

they want a site management program not ambiguous and want it to be tested. on going. now, you guys have been anointsed as the agency that will solve everything. all right. can you assure this body you heard the testimony there is00ue therein is a standard test that was done on a right cross the street. can you assure this body regardless of whether the developer likes you or not, you can play good cop to the neighbor and body to the developer. i upon don't care i want health. and i would like to see low income housing. that's my preference. but are the good cop and the bad cop. can you assure that without us

mandating and putting a condition that the testing that they want or that they thereof will be done on this site or do we have to try to condition it, which somebody might question. can you, can you -- site mechanicment program was -- you were clear there is a sight management program. the appellate says it irrelevant is in the. not clear. is it clear or not clear. ambiguous or a standard program you did through consistently. the sight management plan is instrument will san francisco

law by d. public health temperature similar in kind to an instrument that we typically do the lead agency for cites and will review that document and provide any constructive suggestions we finds to partner at d ph and expectation is, it is possible we could enhance that plan. will you look, after the testimony you heard tonight. would you consider enhancing that site management plan base on the sensitivity of the site to move forward. >> we may finds it add way when we do our complete review and if not we will share with d ph and confidence we work with d ph a lot it it is a great wing rem. if there needs to be an enhancement of the plan, d ph will attack that together. >> there is a site management

plan temperature it is a standard sight plan it is used regular low and standard by d ph and twharm remember site management plan you will look at the adequacy of it and raise the level the quality of that as a matter of standards without us mandate that on the commission? confirmed. >> second. the testing. the testing. there is the neighborhood wants on going testing to determine one, this may be the source. i'm not an engineer. i don't know i heard like everybody else did. the source and determine whether there is our active -- poison in the ground. and to -- no beyond a shadow that the demolition of this site

is not stip litting the release of more pc e's in the grounds to ridiate out and cause potentially cause cancer. okay. can you put that testing in as part of yourtaards sop for this process on this site. without us having to condition anything informa direction? a site management plan is used to protect the surrounding community from a clean up project like put being in clean up equipment or removing soil or demo of a building or construction over contamination material temperature is protecting the community from either the clean up activities

the construction type work. not really an instrument to drive forward further investigation we do that through an instrument. we would -- i will ask you again. i understands the site management plan. this is not in addition i'm listen to the people when pay us how many do we make 50 bucks a hearing or less. 55. okay. we work for the citizens. make big bucks. and so the citizens of san francisco told us tonight we want we just want testing. okay. we are scared to death don't want to get cancer we want to move forward with low income housing nobody said no tow that. they want testing. how can you incorporate testing in this very, very special site

as we have heard tonight without us man mandaing it. i think for this geology and this contamination dtse feels the standards of investigation has been met. that said, more data never hurts. but also i say that it is impossible to prove a negative am we could sample and he will sample and always solemn is something and never finds it. ure condition prove a negative a certain point you say enough data is enough within professional judgment or a level of confidence. dtse foals we are at this point

today. we might be working on an order with another entity we with bring in the 40 to do additional work i can't commit to that on the part of the department now because they are uncertainties about the future under this pregnant way. >> we are talking in the context not building a building yet. there it is no building permit. we are in demo world. right. part of the demolition the simple request, we are down to one thing you defined the site management it is there. and only thing that is the one that if there is osh instruction may be gog it is the dwerp not willing to do the site testing i'm trying to finds member to dot site test to move this

forward. dt stshgs e is responsible for protecting the public from toxins this is in your [inaudible]. so far how does dtse test i site to move forward and get this all. i think wire down to one question. why right. can you ensure to the public there will be on going testing even though it it is not in the regular scope to move this project forward as the vast majority of people talked about tonight in the spirit of moving forward with affordable housing? of with conditions this would be the testing can you make that help? . i a mroutd toefrt get the parties to compromise and come together i'm not trying to be unhelpful i'm trying dt sd had

12 machine days of inspection at the cites to date. more than that. the low if able to document thus far we will be on site multiple times during dem commission on sight with field instruments looking for evidence of pc e and inspecting during the dem commission out there the beginning of vertical construction and excavations for foundations and utility and elvirtpits we will bench if we finds issues we will collect samples but as to an additional rounds of investigation, i understands the communities general request, i don't recall seeing the scope of the work plan that has been e louded to by msna i'm not sure whether they concur with this level of investigation i'm not sure whether the commune members will be satisfied with one more

investigation. it is hard to understands what incremental investigation scope would satisfy all parties. we are answering in the abstract a bit it is hard to visualize. >> you gotta ask the one life lost to cancer. i'm throwing that thut spirit of the conversation tonight. the developer wants to make his dpee do his build and get the low income housing up. i want the housing up so does

ascertain wean and mayor scombreed san franciscans. is it worth the time or the testing? this is when we ask ourselves. mr. green has an associate, mr. duffy. he had mr. green's seat for the first 7 year i was here and mr. duffy said when i don't case like this there is so much scrutiny on them that the department was going to look hard. so i think the question is are they willing to look extra hard and consider an aggressive testing and data collection for the have you of that one life that is presented from cancer? there you go. you want to dress. >> is it a simple answer as

yes. we want to do this in a very electric at when we can do in a defensible way in a scientifically based way. if you were to ask can we guarantee there will be sampling in the footprint of the former cleaners i would not be able to say, yes, to that, i can say it is a high priority for us to satisfy the occurrence of the community. they are concerned about health that it is a priority for us. and [inaudible]. data is helpful. we are it is a priority for us and i mean it is what i can tell you y. one final question. ure committed to collecting as much data as possible within reason to approximate develop a

vow that site is safe? we are absolutely committed to ensuring enough data is collected ensure the site is safe. yes. >> thank you very much >> commissioner trasvina, thank you for letting mow question you in that fashion. >> thank you president swig and thank you for the questions that i think address a lot of what we heard tonight and the questions i have are express in the when you have exchange we had. i etch appreciate the commitments and also concerned about what goes on at the development or the demolition once you finds something? what i mean by that is back to the site management plan. there are 2 sections one deals with discovery of unexpected

under ground structures and another with the discovery of unexpected yours of contamination. when unexpected structures are found, under the site plan, work must stop. when contaminated soil there is no requirement top stop. am i wrong to assume the under ground structure capacitiance is treated more serious low than the finding of contaminated soil. that will be incorrect. i have a document to forward to you. it came in during the question with the opinion. public low facing document. the clir clairea document.

there are sections i extracted for your consideration this strengthen what you see in 64.8. the executive director could forward it. >> can you describe why my conclusion is superceded by what cells out there? we have an agreement. >> adopt appellates vs that agreement. i would assume it hen available to the public since executed. a year plus ago. i don't arbitrate it part of the 960 page of material this we have been provided. i can't speak to the record for the 4 cites greater than the upon 700 pages of the appellate's appeal. i can't speak to their minds which subsection they chose to

draw on to build their -- it has been available to the public since it was executed. if i may i have it i can read the relevant sections to you. gi appreciate that. >> e mail today to me at 8:30 tonight. you were busy when i came in. there is contractual obligation

and agreement the response plan and they committed to and that and commitment it is through instruments like site mitigation they work to create a knelt around the sight i want to alert to you this aspect that supplement what is you see.

on that language it is dangerous in tndc's judgment? correct in this is trierred believing if is unsafe? of learning of previous dhn endangers helling or safety or risk to helling and safety or the environment. so you are right well is an leadership of judgment but an element of liability if you don't notify. so -- what would the reasonable commercial enter prize in

california do about that requirement. that is discoverable and -- informs their liability. there are 4 sections. that will be helpful down the road many years later. in the events determines activity pursoul in the compliance with this green light f. than i are doing outside of our agreement or outside of what is permitted. pose endanger am to the health and safety of the people or site or in the your or to the environment. may order them to stop implementation of the agreement. for such period of time as may be needed to abate the endangerment. disclosure provisions. shall provide all notices and satisfy reportingly requirements

required boy state or federal law with respect to the discovery or release of hazzard substances at this site. can't it say pc e. ien who that was you can't blurt out. i'm not sure when they said. >> 5.133. owner of purchase shall provide access to the site and take all efforts to obtain access to off site yours access is necessary. access provided to employees contractors and consultants at all reason times nothing should be limiting the right of entry. or other agency that may have operation of any law. that i would expect every green light on v. not all agreements

provide site access to the regulator we do this enough we include this. no question or staff can go and take it back to our laboratory. notification field activities inform 7ical dar days veterans will all field activities and allow them and representatives to take duplicates of samples collected. these are a number of terms that are binding on them. i think speak to the short comings you perceive in your mitigation 4.8. >> thank you for this. and letting the public know those prosecute visions are there. than i may be public low available but i prebl, let of the people who we heard from are

not aware of those things that they can do and anticipates doing and has committed to doing. thank you. the matter is submitted so. other questions if not commissioners. it is our time to move this one forward. mr. lopez started with you. last meeting we discuss third degree. i do think that sb35 ties our hands. i think that00 the agency this is wod this in addition to the

dtse have told us that -- it is stye proceed that the demolition will not be prohibitive of further testing of remediation. that the -- site in question does not have indications of being a source of the contamination. i think with those things in minds, i'm not sure how -- you know honoring the appeal you know is really a realistic option before us. and i think -- you know the concerns that have been expressed are -- valid.

nobody likes to hear about any degree of contamination or degree of cancer risk. reasonable healing occurrence it is unfair to cast you know folks who may support hugh moving forward without the appeal as people wo don't care about public health. i think we can have both those things -- be trough in our minds at the same time it is possible to care about public health. and to respect the pregnancy of the experts that you know are

elective officials entrusted with the duties. at times under threat of criminal liability. at the personal level if -- the proper procedures are not followed. and the same time say that -- the sb35 is what it is. and -- what it is, is a prevention about on adding anything additional to a project like this. that we would not add-on to -- a future project. so -- you know with that i'm prepared move to deny the appeal. and but you know i'm open to listen to my fellow commissioner s and having my minds changed this is my current thinking.

commissioner trasvina. >> thank you president swig and appreciate vice president lopez 'analysis of the situation and -- i think back from when we started on this and -- we are told that sb35, period. being told the neighbors are told put your head in the sand. not this sand and not until we know what suspect in there. i believe through this process and because of the getting face-to-face dts stay in front of us and your persistence, president swig, we made improvements to when will be what will be. affordable housing 26 and irving. most dense concentration of housing in the sunset district.

and it it is a dangerous area because we don't know otherwise. at this point. of this is i don't believe that the appellates, attorneys or otherwise come up with boil are plate language they will put in about cancer risks or health occurrence and this will we will see these, raised across san francisco. against affordable housing. it is here for a reason. because of the history. of that intersection the history what has been there. and a funeral home on the property back up until the early 80s. we can't just say we have a moral duty to accelerate construction of projects. wo have a moral duty to mr.

weiss's father-in-law. we have a moral duty to health and safety of members of all of our communities including the people who will live there example i was struck by public comment that they building anticipates having a barrier. to protect from emissions. i appreciate there is more to the site management plan than the 2 seconds i had i had referred to. those are the only one in fronts of us until that last set of questions. i believe there is work to be done. i would be interested to look

for reasonable additions to the permit. reasonable time and cost in order to make sure that -- this affordable housing complex can be fwhlt a timely fashion but with the safety of everyone in upon mind concern and future residents for as long as that building will be there. >> commissioner? thank you, president swig i concur we made progress tonight and did get a lot of things clarified we did not have 2 weeks ago. i despite all of the testimony to the contrary i'm not

convinced we should not have some condition on the permit. i think what the appellates are asking for is limited. and extremely reasonable. and i believe this president swig eluding to it all evening. i would be in support of a motion that imposed the very limited conscience that have been proposed tonight. and i agree with president swig's questioning this i continuing hen narrowed down significant cannot low. and that it does come down to the question and i do -- don't know if the president swig feels the same i don't believe that single question has been sufficient low answered. i feel there is work arounds and there has been double talk. and you know -- call mow a softy, i'm more moved by public

comment from neighbors who lost loved 1 and lost their long time neighbors than by people telling me something about myself that is not true that i'm against affordable housing which is complete trash. and i'm offended considering my record that is proposed here. upon i know i can't help but hear the place of neighbors and you know even with everything involved here still boiling down to the fact that i'm convinced that the residence denials of the new 2550 irving will be protected from pc e contamination i'm not convinced the neighbors will be and i will stop there. >> thank you. >> i want to thifrng my commissioners for perspectives

and viewpoints. the way i electric at this is one first i have to give a great deal of respect to the neighbor who is have despite political pressure express their concern. i'm the president of the neighborhood association dog patch area. we have a significant amount of develop and want cortez and [inaudible] cites. so we had to deal with concerns around remediation and compoundses and other things in development sometimes next to inhabited yours. and so when we have gone through that process we have pushed hard against public health to goet when we thought at the time and i like to consider the gold standards for that.

how it is compared to general risk you learn thered is something there you did not know what was there this is terrifying. i want to thank for coming out this was a very, very well done set of responses to greueling questioning. i have as an attorney i have been asked question and had to qualify it. because an absolutely standards and this world i think you did a goodion of providing direction and where that direction may be noted entirely accurate under all circumstances. so i thank you for that. i -- share commissioner

lemberg's concern about some of the testimony and things this were said. sb35 does in the take this out of hand its says we have to use a very limited scope of review. i think we have been dillien in trying to determine whether or not we have scope of review to exercise here. commissioner swig, went become to the 3 things we were looking for in the last meeting and get more clarity site plan, monitor and whether examineination. i think this through the process of the discussion, we have come to the understanding there is a site plan, that site plan and commitment to strengthen elements of the site plan to meet deefficiencies what the neighborhood wouldment. there will be monitoring vapor dust monitor at the fence

listen. there has been examination of 40 samples on sited. there will be more of this going on throughout the process. things are still going to be reviewed during a construction process. is this add >> that is a difficult question. i have to defer to the experts and this is dtse. we talked about the number and they are hard to understand that the level of the [inaudible] cause 2 cases out of a million per 70 years. that's a lot of numbers to get in our head that is above the number you start to take an electric at things. its how is this relative. we have the relative to daily

life this is all the banning ground carsin gents walking down the street. i am going become to where i live we have 2 freeways going by. there has been a lack of hat standard should be and they got to what i was thinking in the last bit up here is this unfortunately i think the standards from the environment is political not scientific statement u. can't have prove of safety. it does not exist. we can measure it. that will haveeror whether or not the site is safe.

and the dtse is saying in bans it is safe and they will keep an eye on it. that the is current situation. you got them looking at a multiblock area not just this site. in order to identify and remeat mediate the problem perform okay. does the demolition change the safety? the answer is no, may make it easier to remeat mediate and will be there to keep an eye on things. if the we are wrong we should be able to catch it. so, that is a long way of getting around to the question we have before us, that is whether this permit was proper leave issued. and we would under normal s say,

that it could have been issued better, more proper low and put in a condition that would be what we do. but we have to look to say whether that condition is applied on other permits at the time. and -- it is in the that gets us back to the sb35. in other s the permit come across the same way. we were trying to figure out how to do this. in our last meeting and you know the question was whether or not we could say that i i if a project was presented with similar environmental concerns not sufficient low address said.

perhaps the environmental occurrence in the plan at our urging and pressure on the dtse have been addressd and so i don't think we have the ability to impose other conditions on the permit holder as a result of the state law. that's an unintended 81s kwens special may be reviewd and relegislated if this is a problem but this statute law that bindses us at this time. >> thank you. and thank you, commissioners for dig nothing on our 2 hearings. and your scrutiny and diligence and care and concern for the community at large. i would like to support were the principle which is made arguing

with myself with regard to condition. but this men cleared up with one more question. skoal you were reading those items scrolling through and -- what i heard correct me if i'm wrong is that dtse access to inspect the site at will. >> correct y. and if you feel for any reason you want to in the reason could be 42 degrees and you foal like it you can go in and inspect and do testing? >> correct. >> you have this and this is the condition part. i don't have to do it. do you understands the will of the commission that we want to

you do this aggressively? this you understand that it statute will of the neighborhood that than i want to you do that aggressively? and so this we anticipate that -- you will do i know you will do your job i'm not going to accused you of not. but that your prodpiel protocol related the project has intensity that will satisfy obviously the occurrence of the commission come obviously the occurrence of the neighborhood with. arbitrary inspection of the site and have your commitment on this. >> you do i point out though that our site inspection field instruments and ability to collect samples may not reach the level that they contemplay in the requests i have not seen their work. i want to be clear what we are

able to do with we will be out well multiple times to inspect it may not a rise to the level that they contemplate i want that to be clear. y understand that. i'm going to again invoke the duffy rule. that is if enough ice are on it enough, the developer and builder will get it right. if we have this commitment that gives me comfort not to done and support the motion as is. thank you very much i encourage my fellow commissioners to dot same unless commissioner lemberg feels there is a need to put a further condition commissioner trasvina? to the lives entities that believe that can your investigation and inspections go

for the aggressive i will add the board of supervisors to the list through their resolution from last year. i had ricomment for commissioner eppler if the question is whether the permit was issued appropriately, i would say, no , it was not. it did not apore to have the depth and understanding of the issues that have in up over this period of time of on that basis i say, the appeal should be granted. if we look at today and recognizing the progress made over the last 2 hearings in the last 40 minutes then i would say that the permit should go forward. >> commissioner lemberg.

i'm clearly on the losing end of this. i ultmitt low what it boyles down to for me is -- that there is in the accountable to the neighborhood. you greet i agree i don't think the permit was properly issue exclude grant the appeal with limited conditions as requested here. and i -- i will not vote, yes on the motion to deny. >> are we going to imvote to you detail any conscience that you might wish and present them

to -- commissioner lopez. the let me think for a moment. the kin add is adding permitting agents of the neighborhood association -- they can -- condition that would apply. >> i will now i look and sigh ask him if that fits in the sb35 box.

projects not guilty suburbanject to sb35 and cannot impez the condition imhibitit or precloud the development the question raised point of view commissioner lemberg's proposal whether this condition that the neighbors have access to the site during demolition to test the soil. the question is whether that is a condition that is is imposed on other projects this are not subject to sb35. why and -- um -- i thank you we determine third degree last week that we have done so.

mr. green indicated that when you had agents collaborate on projects where there were questions -- on engine ore and condition tammyination et cetera, i think we set this standard but -- >> i appreciate that. the real question here is this type of condition. that requires a permittee to allow access to third parties on their site. and potential low to test on that site. whether had is a condition that is applied to other demolition permits. >> can i turn and ask represent now this he heard the concerns of commissioner, and the limitations that -- may be put

to us dtse open to receiving communication from and request from the public. without our mandate. a couple of thoughts if there is a condition on the permit for investigation. permit for additional investigation suggest this the town be given for dtce to have it done boy parties we engage

and if not dtse be allowed do with their consultants over site and only if the first dts sxeshgs than i are unable to perform it. this it be done boy a third party over site. i'm not sure that got to -- your question. i love. your line of thinking i'm not sure we can get that through the sb35. i'm trying to simple point of view it to give the neighborhood a cond wit to a communication to a party involved as we discussed inspection to -- hear their thought and consider their concerns and on going inspections without. the answer is yes, we are always open to community feedback. it would help us with the volume of requests if the community is

comfortable with the qualified professional in consulting capacity to route the comments through the professional and come bien them and then could receive those but we are open to public comment or as aggregated by consult ans you want to mandate it. or trust? he will guide us -- captain of the ship he is. we know you are on borrowed time you will be replaced we will put you on the test, john. i i would make a couple points. on the condition to require the

property owner to allow the neighbors to come on site. i believe -- i think i responded this. you know the requirement that -- dtse communicated with the neighbors. i believe outside the jurisdiction of the board. to impose this requirement, of course they could voluntary low enengage. >> we heard that -- testimony now that is why i asked would you accept neighborhood comment and leave you said if well managed and come to a central source. yes they will accept buzz they are on the record and commentary with the coordination it come through an organized cond wit. that makes me comfortable tell happen because i don't think the

neighbors are going to i think the neighbors will hear and say, we have our license to communicate. and then they can manage the process. right? that work? >> you are open to individuals on xhoungz or consolidated what works best for the community. >> commissioner lopez. i wanted to address the view that is shared that the permit was not purpose low issued. i think -- from my recollection and my perspective we heard from -- d ph from plan and the other agencies that absent sb35. and the situations we don't put

the conditions on the permit. we heard that. and so -- the what is transpoired in the last couple of weeks has been the collection and presentation of information to us from dtse. i don't think tht under lying findings that lead dts torques say this is a safe demolition permit. i don't think it helped in the left twochl weeks the permit was inappropriate at the time. or even happened since the issuance of permit. and so -- i do think we have a better understanding of the standards guide lines and recommendations what have you.

of the gray zones that exist of the acceptable levels that exist and what safe means. but i don't think that this is something that was collected or gathered in terms of under lying findings. supporting the issuance of the permit to move forward. i think that was manage this was improved in the 2 weeks we could not get answers to our questions left time. but they told us then it was safe. they could not tell us y. in great detail. i think this level of detail has improved -- tonight. and for this i thank the representative from the dtse including our represent who testified left time in

appreciate now a bit more of the become ground the last minute inclusion and the program. but with this in mind i do think that the permit was properly issued at the time. because we heard from all the agencies in the city this is not something we normally do. and we heard from the dtse hey thshg is okay to move forward. i have not heard you know any hesitation on those points. from any agencies. >> commissioner lemberg. i wanted to spoke as to the sb35 factors.

my conclusion is the same without the sb35 hovering over us. and the other factor, which i'm forgetting because it is late. [laughter]. sorry. um -- inhibit or preclude the development. allowing the neighborhood -- expert access would noted inhibit the project it would go on the same time line it would be currently. thot all i wanted to add and i'm done. thanks >> with that do you -- i'm not

going to put a condition on because my question was -- answered thoroughly and probed and answered thoroughly. do you have a condition this is burn nothing your seoul you want added to this? motion? >> to me it the level of acounterable that condition imposed would gift project. but i will in the bring a motion and lose one to 4. why do we have a motion we have another case to hear. >> so. >> all right. the motion, your motion stands commissioner? >> yea. i will repeat which ask deny the pel the permit was properly issued. >> on vice president lopez motion commissioner trasvina. >> no. >> commissioner lemberg. >> no >> commissioner eppler. why yes. >> president swig.

>> yes this motion carries 3-2 and the pel is denied. we thank you for your patience, everyone. must having on to item 8 appeal 23-003 diana meisstrell planning property 2322 north point street. to at rigz permit. second floor only. remove and replace in kinds upon cord to plan. hall bath. window replace am remove and replace 14 windows not the front street permit 22-0407180 sick. and ms. meisstrell thank you firefighter your patience. you learned more. joy learned a lot. in so. you have 7 minutes. we can wait until it quiets down

if you want. thank you for hang nothing i learned, let and preshture time and lynch to my minimal appeal. i'm appealing the granting of permit based on several. no notice from hoa or to the hoa. it is incompatible to the residential design guidelines. and the common your ownership or the windows not 50/50 it is 52-48 i'm diana meisstrell and a member of the north point homeowner's association.

they are applicable to ordinance of the hoa the correspondo association is made up of 2 individual unit and existence since to 006 when the home was converted. as per section 6-within of the declaration rivered the prior written approval of the association is required before an owner can make modifications to any portion of the common area including use common your per nanlt. or make improvements in his or her unit fact the burden on common building systems. result in increase in sound trans mission. or otherwise affect the common your or other unit. january 22 i observed on dbi website a permit applied boy the

new owner. the condo below me a 2 unit building employmented modificationos his unit. i mentioned to the occupant the requirement of notification and approval by the hoa. there was no action on the permit until january of thissier. the same application showed a permit guaranteed and i think you have i copy in your package. some elements of permit chinked reference to the replacement of 14 exterior windows the total number on the lower unit 2322 north point less the street facing. no notify was upon given. nor to me as a member and no approval has been made for this change or for any other modification to the building. ghaen is violation of section 6.1 of the ccnr the north point hoa you have i copy if you need.

in addition urn the ccnr windows part of the common your. and unlike the unit interior i'm a 52% exposobject to the permit. i would like to read you from a company in the bay area. typical hoa requires approval to make changes to exterior walls the structure of the building or aesthetics to the exist ajs. window reason real doors fall in this category. in the respondent's broef hoe, tamped i copy of a lawsuit he filed left year. he referred to article 6 of the ccn ruks and requirement to notify and get, proved modification to the common area. item 8 of his submission and refers to the need to notify the hoa appealing the approval of

the permit grants exclude revoked pending notification or approval of the modification improvement of the hoa. anyhow about the requirement and, plays to all hoa members. this is a pattern the co-owners established performing modifications to the common your without informing the hoa or getting approval. example putting nonco boltos doors. policing personal wireless cameras in common your without notice or approval or consideration of privacy. . storing furniture and gym equipment in the garden and sometimes in the pass knowledge way from the outside into the garden. as my third issue. this project does instead comply with the residential design guide lines the neighborhood

character section 2. building details window section 6. and section 7 special guidelines for at rigzs to buildings of merit. here are a couple from the guide lines if the choice of materials andornament has no rational it will electric integrity. windows to the character of the building in the neighborhood. facades not only the front and roar but sides and walled in light list ensure the materials replacement and windows on now building are present to each architectural character. reflective glass may not be present. buildings original material essential. if necessary replace only those windows deteriorated. and i like to show you a picture of the windows. than i are not deteriorated.

so this is from the back garden view the bottom layer is mr. mc kelly kosovo unit and motorbike is the top they are all perfect. spanish revival. so in conconclusion i request tht permit suspended it is contrary requiring notice from hoa52% of the common yours owner of 52% of common area windows i object and does in the come ply with the design guide lines a different window on each floor is incompatible. i don't think it is permitted. thank you for your time and attention. i was faster than i thought. >> we have a few questions.

? board cannot make a decision on permit appeal based on ccnr. thort. the violation is essential low a civil dispout with the property owners. i asked because the brief mentioned but did not provide back up for it. i wanted to see had your opinion on it was. thank you. i will ask the same question in a different way. baseod the presentation you heard just now, what elements may we consider and what elements should be considered a

civil action and we condition consider? like i mention the the approximate terrible violation of the ccnrs's not consider whether the project is consistent with design guidelines. you may consider in this matter. >> design guide lines and code compliance are those are the only thing this is we should be considering as part of this appeal? correct. imented ask this. so the commissioners are clear code compliance and design. >> thank you. >> so -- good question. you can do so in time >> she will have time in rebuttal. she did wait for 4 hours. >> this woman almost 5 hours. >> iel. >> i was curious if you say that

this is in the the proper accomplice for the ccnr's is this a legal issue i would have to file a let you? or there is a lawsuit outstanding but this was granted by the board by the dbi without it does not seem that is making they can guarantee that based on -- okay. of hoa. >> hoa's -- we need to hear from all the parties about the validity of the permit i believe commissioner trasvina. we did not she deserves in the spirit direct answer on matter was related to ccnr's they are civil issues and the jurisdiction loyals where? >> i want to be careful not to

give you any legal advice i representative the city. and not you i would recommend that in terms of to explore all options to epiforce the hoa agreement you consult with a lawyer but attorney in a city attorney's office this board can't help you enforce. there is a separate action. appreciate that. i gsz i like to focus on the design guidelines that is something you could rowel on >> we can in rebuttal. you will have time for that. where does she go to enforce the ccnr. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder.

>> diana and i have an outstanding disagreements with the ccnr but it is my understand thanksgiving is not the forum to address. changeless i'm look to make are internal on my unit only. upgrade winnows conserve energy. faucets i'm not look to change the design of the building or the windows at all. that's it. >> can you confirm you are max, rit? >> in. owner. >> thank you. >> i don't see questions so we will hear from the planning upon departmentful >> i'm tina tammy for planning.

2322 north point is a 2 story over basement 2 unit in the r3 zoning. construct in the 19 twine a potential historic resource. permit pertains to w on the second floor and includes renovation of 2 existing burden of proofs and replacement of windows. scope of the work complies with planning code and consistent with window replacement guide lines new will be aluminum and match the existing withins oft property. 91 of them are visible to the street. the permit was, proved boy planning staff over the counter permit. appellate is the condooy owner on the third floor concerned the prior approval was not given for the proposed work. including the window replace am.

diana believes this is is in violation of ccnr's established for the property. puheard, ccnr's is not regulated by planning coyed. civil disputes are outside the purvow of the planning department. with that said the planning will recommend to the board deny the xael uphold the issuance of the permit on the basis the permit was issued properly. >> commissioner trasvina then commissioner lemberg. are there city guidelines related mismatching windows? >> we do.

they'll be up grided doubling pane and consistent with guide lines for replace am. if the buildings was a historic resource, it is not and the windows at the from the we would have high ever standards would want everything to be matching wood windows now we want all wood not justice wood clad. the windows are not at the front. very close low matching what is there now to be replaced. if than ior side, light well or roar of the property. >> >> thank you. commissioner lemberg >> discretion is say i didn't my

curiosity. i assume plan and d bi do a check who is the promote party to apply for a type of permit. how do hoa's are common how do they play into that? because a lot of buildings are have hoa's the common area replacements. i will let mr. green answer this now. >> okay. good evening again commissioners matthew green representing dbi the per mist is for minor work on a 2 unit 3 story building the work includes replacing 14 window and upgrading the bathroom and half bath the approved plan don't show any

change in the with you layout or upgrades the permit application was reviewed and approved proper low dispute with the hoa member system private. project complies with the building code approximate dbi recommends appeal be denied and permit upheld there was a complaints last week the conjecturing stairs of the middle unit installed with you permit. new commrinlts and dbi is investigating this >> as to the who is so we check hot owner is of this unit. and that's where the work is done. so -- the hoa agreements will not come in play with dbi's approval. it it is too much to get approval from every member of the hoa for work this has in up before.

reasonable. i'm available for questions you may have >> commissioner eppler. i didn't see on the permit the window replacement is like for like does dbi inspect with relation to the replacements. >> we do inspection and sign the permit y. verify it is like for like. why not normally we can do that. am i have in plans for the permit. vinyl they are wood windows temperature is 1929 builds the

design guide lines twhoon was does not just, ploy to the front applies to the sides as well and the back and garden is in the back that's the picture. you ken see it now. i don't know if he will put reflective glass. who knows. i had no -- no knowledge of when hoe is putting in there. i think this so even if you don't if you ken focus on the hoa's issue of it. i can do that through an attorney. but i think that this like for like needs to notify it is like for like they are wood framed windows and double hung i had no knowledge and not presented with this. so -- i really think this if you i don't know you can put tinted window and against the design. and also -- the replace am

winnow and it says if window replacement is necessary it is in the in this case replace those that are deteriorated and cannot be repaired that it is in the design guidelines for san francisco. again on those ground fist you kent on hoa i think it should be the permit should be denied. >> thanks. >> hello. now the permit holder. yes. i'm upon even agent for jtm construction the windows are anderson they are aluminum include and wood windows i pulled hundreds of permits per window in commrins with the city of san francisco. than i are in the tinted than i are not this they are the standard dual pain with 24 come

mroins for energy code upgrade and are like for like farz the design they followed in the guidelines of the winnows. requirements for the stele they were passed boy the city. there is zero issue with the window in terms when they will look like. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department. anything further? how about dbi. um -- if you are concerned built windows i recommend you put i condition to start work inspection required. the permit that would have him go out before the installment is started note the types of windows. >> what are you suggest.

star work inspection required verify the existing windows. start work inspection required. thank you. okay. commissioners this matter is submitted. we did, nobody was here. i can make another call you want. you diligent. commissioner eppler? thank you, i will star and i will make a motion for my fellow commissioners to debit and that motion would be that i move we uphold the appeal and grant the permit on the condition dbi perform i start work inspection on the base i that will allow dbi to verify the terms of the granted permit.

>> okay. all right. other commissioners have comments or go to a vote? go to a vote? >> on that motion vice president lopez. why aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. aye >> president swig. >> aye >> that carries 5-zero. we will the appeal was granted with that condition. thank you. this concludes the hearing. why thank you. thanks for everybody's time. great job. thank you for serving the public nicely.

>> i am iris long. we are a family business that started in san francisco chinatown by my parents who started the business in the mid 1980s. today we follow the same footsteps of my parents. we source the teas by the harvest season and style of crafting and the specific variety.

we specialize in premium tea. today i still visit many of the farms we work with multigenerational farms that produce premium teas with its own natural flavors. it is very much like grapes for wine. what we do is more specialized, but it is more natural. growing up in san francisco i used to come and help my parents after school whether in middle school or high school and throughout college. i went to san francisco state university. i did stay home and i helped my parents work throughout the summers to learn what it is that makes our community so special. after graduating i worked for an investment bank in hong kong for a few years before returning

when my dad said he was retiring. he passed away a few years ago. after taking over the business we made this a little more accessible for visitors as well as residents of san francisco to visit. many of our teas were traditionally labeled only in chinese for the older generation. today of our tea drinkkers are quite young. it is easy to look on the website to view all of our products and fun to come in and look at the different varieties. they are able to explore what we source, premium teas from the providence and the delicious flavors. san francisco is a beautiful city to me as well as many of the residents and businesses here in chinatown. it is great for tourists to

visit apsee how our community thrived through the years. this retail location is open daily. we have minimal hours because of our small team during covid. we do welcome visitors to come in and browse through our products. also, visit us online. we have minimal hours. it is nice to set up viewings of these products here. . >> i love that i was in four plus years a a rent control tenant, and it might be normal because the tenant will -- for the longest, i was applying for

b.m.r. rental, but i would be in the lottery and never be like 307 or 310. i pretty much had kind of given up on that, and had to leave san francisco. i found out about the san francisco mayor's office of housing about two or three years ago, and i originally did home counseling with someone, but then, my certificate expired, and one of my friends jamie, she was actually interested in purchasing a unit. i told her about the housing program, the mayor's office, and i told her hey, you've got to do the six hour counseling and the 12 hour training. she said no, i want you to go with me. and then, the very next day that i went to the session, i notice this unit at 616 harrison became available,

b.m.i. i was like wow, this could potentially work. housing purchases through the b.m.r. program with the sf mayor's office of housing, they are all lotteries, and for this one, i did win the lottery. there were three people that applied, and they pulled my number first. i won, despite the luck i'd had with the program in the last couple years. things are finally breaking my way. when i first saw the unit, even though i knew it was less than ideal conditions, and it was very junky, i could see what this place could be. it's slowly beginning to feel like home. i can definitely -- you know, once i got it painted and slowly getting my custom furniture to fit this unit because it's a specialized unit, and all the units are microinterms of being very small. this unit in terms of adaptive, in terms of having a murphy

bed, using the walls and ceiling, getting as much space as i can. it's slowly becoming home for me. it is great that san francisco has this program to address, let's say, the housing crisis that exists here in the bay area. it will slowly become home, and i am appreciative that it is a bright spot in an otherwise and if you need a seat, take whatever empty seat if you need to sit down. first of all, good afternoon! and i want to say welcome to pier 70 in the dog pad's neighborhood. dog pat's is in the house. recently voted one of the hises

neighborhood in the city. i want to start by telling you a story about a famous san franciscoian, born in 1835 held from connecticut and named the niantic. yes it's appropriate that we gather at a pier today because the niantic was a ship, a commercial ship destined for trade with khien' until in 1849 her captain got word that hundreds of migrants were in panama looking for transportation to san francisco where no doubt their fortune and gold awaited. so the niantic crew rebuilt her for a passenger ship and left panama