>> good evening welcome to the board appeals. vice president lopez will be the officer tonight and joined by commissioner john tras vinasm alex patrol berg and jr eppler. rick swig is absent. also john gib in for legal advice. i'm julie rosenberg executive director we will be joined from city departments presenting. we expect later mr. rich hillous from planning and tina tammy zoning administrator and later

kelly wong code enforcement manager with planning. present in the front is matthew green inspection service for dbi and we expect 2 represents from the department of public health. upon item 6 we'll be joins by representative from thes california department of toxic substances control. whitney smith the project manager and shaw project manager. and doctor rothwane to beingicologist. kim walsh. unit chief and branch chief. board meeting guide lines requests you turn off all phones and other electronics so they will not disturb. no eating or drink. rules of presentation,

appellates and permit hold and spantds 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people affiliated include went 7 to 3 minute periods. members not affiliated have 3 minutes. time limited to 2 minutes if the agenda is long or a lot of speakers. our legal assistant will give you 30 seconds before your time is up. 4 votes are required to grant an appeal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the rules or schedules e mill staff at board of appeals sfgov.org public access are of importance. sfgovtv is broadcasting this hearing live and receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgov.org is proviing closed captions. go to sfgovtv cable channel 78.

the live stroll is on the home page on sfgov.org/boa. public comment in person. zoom. go to the website and click on hearings and the zoom link or by phone. call 669-900-6833. and access code: 884 4014 0096. sfgovtv is streaming the numbers and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. to block your phone number dial star 67 then the initial dial star 9, which is equal to raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will brought into the hearing. dial star 6 to unmute yourself. have you 2-3 minutes.

our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning well is a delay with live and what is broadcast on tv and the internet t. is important that people call nothing ruse or turn off volumes on television's or computers otherwise well is interference if anyone on zoom need disability or technical make a request on the chat function or send an e mail to board of appeals @sfgov.org. note that we'll take public comment first from those who are present in the room. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to t. any member may speak without an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify tonight and wish the board to give your testimony evidenceary weight

raise your right hand and say, i do. do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing butt truth? >> thank you. if you are a participate and you are not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. we are moving on first to item 1. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to peek on a matter in the board's jurisdiction but not on the calendar tonight. is there anybody here withhold like to speak on an item not on tonight's calendar or anyone on zoom. i don't see anyone. we'll move on to item 2. commissioner comments and questions? >> commissioners any i see mr. trasvina? >> thank you. commissioner, good even, everyone. at our last meeting commissioner lemberg commented about public comment and avoiding down.

i appreciate and i concur in his views and appreciation for public comment. i'm concerned about today and frustrated looking at this agenda and previous agendas, and because of the brown act i don't know whether i can bring this up prior to or at meetings. i want to layout my occurrence the length of the submissions from the parties. briefs are supposed to be brief. we have a page limit of 12-14 pages and we are getting literally thousands of pages on various cases and sometimes they are repetitive documents and in 2 case today i go through i don't mind going through the record it it is important but when there are hundreds of pages one case over a thousand in another. whether repetitive we are not

only making it more difficult and possible low in need of moving back deaddead line for submission and sends a message to members of the public that perhaps you need a high priced lawyer to get in front of us. or if you are going to appeal something you will go up against somebody had has the wherewithal to put up a thousand pages against you. that's not what we are hear for we are supposed to be accessible to the people. not always the case that is happening. and one of the matters we had to go through a thousand pages a week before you found the department's position. i don't know that is internal issue or whether there is a rule that needs to be done or public comment on it. i want to i do want to express my concerns that we don't lose touch with the public by being

hit with paper that does in the help us get to the substance of the matters before us. thank you. commissioner eppler. >> thank you, commissioner trasvina for that i recall when we had paper submissions there was a discipline in printing of this and perhaps electronic submissions made it easy. i want today acthanking today was the first day of classes in the school district and wanted to give a shout out to staff and teachers who made the campuses nice for students parents today. thank you all for that. >> i will take a second to echo both those comments. i think with respect to the agenda before us and public upon

comment, given the first i want to welcome everyone who came this evening. not parties but the public. but to that end, if it looks like the meeting will be long, i think well may be an interest in considering the shortening of public comment even though i echo the expressions of my fellow commissioners who appreciated expressed preservation for public comment. i enjoy public comment i enjoy the opportunity for public comment in other public hearings as a member of the public. and i have for several years, well is a luof diminishing returns to the length of meetings and our ability to review large volumes of documents. and that's another area where there may be some efficiencies to be gained.

without sacrificing much in the way of public expression and comment f. we have i big volumes that may be in play. with that. i think we can move on. >> okay. thank you. is there public comment on this item? raise your hand or approach the microphone. >> i don't see any public comment we am move to item 3. commissioners before you for adoption are the minutes of august seconded, 23 meeting. private hearing. commissioner lemberg reached out and let me know a speaker in 7a and b her last name has 2n's not one. make that change. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i move to approve the minutes with that correction. >> okay. thank you. is there public ment on this

motion? raise your hand. okay. we have a motion from commissioner trasvina to adopt the minutes amended as corrected by commissioner lemberg on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> we are moving on to item 4. appeal 23-032. julie sieh. 354 head street on june second to a notice of violation the property is authorized for residential use with single unit the violation pertains to unauthorized unit on the ground floor near the garage. sf we will hear from the appellate first. and i believe her attorney is present? mr. goodman. welcome. thank you >> andrew. >> i apologize. >> no problem.

>> so i'm andrew catral appearing for the appellate and the appellate is appealing the planning department's june second order to revise unauthorized dwelling in her single family home at 354 head street. the planning department's order is demanding appellate create now rental house negligence her single family home. appellate does not have the financial capability. 2, it would amount to the violation of the city's own codes and 3, order of this affect is preepted by state law allowing landlords to exit the rental business. the unauthorized dwelling unit built by appellate's father after purchasing the home in 2005. the family made the unfortunate decision to rent out per of their home to a tenant. the tenant complained the unit

live nothing single family home was illegal and the appellate went throughout process of getting the permits to legalize the unit. this was in 2016 when she applied for the permit and thought she could achieve legal iegz the unit. she thought at that point the tenants would cooperate with her efforts to legalize that was wrong the tenants were not cooperative and dragged on for years. we are now to the point where legalizing the unit am cost the appellate according to her contractor 305 thousand dollars. and it will result in din nugz of value of 180 thounz. property. appellate is in the a landlord. she is in the a wealthy woman. in 2019 fell tr a ladder and injured her vertebrae. had trouble working.

her income rused to 13 thousand dollars a year. she in the only afford to make it to the unit she can't ford to be a landlord n. august 8 of 2023 invoked the elis act removing the entire property from the rental market which is the only rental aspect of her property is this unauthorized unit. as part of this process paid the tenants 10 thousand dollars in relocation fees and will pay another 10 thousand dollars in fees when the tenants leave the unit. if according to pursuant to the notice tell be in 8 months after it was served alcohol be in december 2023. can at this point the unit empty will make an effort to legalize the unit. had she can't do and capable of

doing is turn thanksgiving to another legal dwelling unit within her own unit. and it is something that the city cannot do. california government code 7060a presented public ebtities compelling landlords to continue to offer accommendation in property for rent or lose. there are case laws that prevent cities from doing what the planning department is attempt to do here which is to force a landlord to create or maintain housing within their own property of and finally, the city's order legalize the unit violates its planning code 207.3b2 says that a land owner cannot legalize an unlawful unit if a no fault e vingz with the elis act notice. the mraveng department is force the appellate to do something by its rules would be illegal.

if there are upon unlawful conscience in the unit the appeal appellate the legalize them but cannot do so until it is vacant and she expects to happen december of this year with the requests the board to do is grant a continuance to her and until that time when she can legalize the unit and stay any penalties until that time. i will be available for questions. if there is extra available time mrs. sieh would like to talk to not make the conversion the city is asking. >> yes, you have 2 minutes and 25 seconds. of >> if you could approach the microphone. >> thank you. >> everyone i try very hard to you know try to be sure that legalize the place since i got 205 i have an application for i

work all the time with the tenants but the attentives it is like they don't want to move out for all the reasons and i got a 2017 started to have cancer for breast cancer and surgery. i have memory prevent [inaudible] and broke my spinal cord. after that i will i struggle. i tried very heard to live all this. but even i try to say, move out. let mow do it and i can rent my place after later you can move back. they did not want to move out so it is like many years i have to answer the price and have no income. over 2 years i have cancer. and then i can't do any jobs. and later i wonder after another

and lost a job i have memory problem and all i only stand 15 minutes walking you know after walking i have remember i walking i have to rest awhile. so it is like for my job i all the time i lost job i can't do like a continue to dot job 8 hours. i only thing i can do is like you know translation or sometimes handle something short low. that's all can i do the job. right nought other total cost is 305,000. that's like a giant amount for me. i never can make it:you have 30 seconds. >> i hope you guys understand i did my bechlt gave them the place to live to live to my accomplice i move down stair

they don't want it. you know they want the front and back. i move back they don't want it. they want to keep both i say you have one when you move back after legalize and another front and become they didn't do it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> kweel hear from the planning department. >> good evening vice president lopez and members of the board tina tammy deputy zoning administrator. 354 head street a 2 story family in rh1 zoning the appeal for the notice of i have lagdz on june first, 2023. the notify violation describes it including illegal construction. in illegal conversion of a

residentses to a 2 family dwelling. the notice provided a time line of the investigation and out lines the corrective step it is needed abate the violations. as stated on pain 5 of the notice of violation. failure to respond within 30 days result in the assessment of penalties. penalties are 250 dollars for each day violation continues un, baited. and the penalties starts on the 31st day of the deaf notice. only if nov becomes final. the appellate is the property owner mrs. sieh. and because the nov is not final due to the appeal no pents are currently be assessed. from mrs. sieh. >> before i sum rise my response to the argument i like to point out that this notice was the fourth notice sent to the property owner.

previous to this notice we sent a notice of complaint. a notice of enforcement. a notice of required compliance to mrs. sieh required what is needed to abate the violations on her property. the nov the next action in our process. based upon records the 2016 corrective permit for 354 head is to legalize the unit on the ground floor. this permit was filed by the property owner after her attentive in thes udu had filed a wrongful eviction petition with the rent board. the rent board information is per of the appellate's exhibits. her tenants in the udu since 2004. seeing this permit is on legalize and complies with the planning code and addresses the violation staff approved the

permit. while being for different types of violation can vary and udu's take 1-two years this case has remained unabated for a very long time. to date corrective permit to legalize remains issued but not completed. it happen when it is complete by dbi. during all of the conversations and communications the owner and the planner the owner has never expressed an interest in not legalizing. the property owner is now saying one, no longer interested in legalizing the unit. two, plans to file an elfact eviction to remove the unit or the entire property from the rental market. and she believes the planning

code violates her right to privacy. >> it is appears after many years of work width owner to abate violations she changed her mind. regardless. of how the property owner choses to abate legalize the unit or remove the unit it remains undisputed there are violations on this property. the property owner has not abated. not performing the work in the corrective permit has been issued 4 years ago, institutes not dem stating good faith to comply with the code. she is an owner wishes to remove she can by filing a cu authorization. the department asked that the board deny the appeal andup hold the issuance of the notice of violation on the basis the za did not error or abuse discretion. this concludes my presentation.

happy to answer questions. >> thank you i don't see questions we'll hear from dbi. good evening vice president lopez. matthew green representing dbi. this is an appeal of a planning department notice of violation i like to add information. there is a 2016 permit to legalize this unit. issued in 2019 and extended in 2022 and permit is valtoyed 2024. there has been no inspection as of date work has not commenceod this permit. there has been dwelve different complaints since 2007 about this building. various no heat. broken windows and a company complaints about the illegal unit we have one active notice

for the heat in the building. this is background information does in the apply to the notice of planning notice of violation. the dbi does not have a notice of violation there was a permit to legalize the unit when the complaints came in we made note it appeared the owner was trying to legalize the u nit. i would say if she changes her mind she would have to cancel this perimism remove illegal construction you need a permit to legalize or to remove the illegal unit. >> we have an economy from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. i will keep it short. am i to take from your testimony that dbi heads known it has been a rental since 2007? >> no we had various complaints about a maintenance issues.

there are i can go over it. >> no , i don't need the details. a complaint about a may nots issue come from correct. >> yes. >> tenants. >> family member in a single family home >> correct. >> during the covid period as dbi enforcement or activities dropped any. >> no. >> so the same, so. matter this is came before you that were not slowed down by covid? >> no. >> no. the beginning of the pandemic yes we adjusted like everybody but we got back up and running there has been no curtailing. >> thank you. >> thank you we are move to public comment is there public dment for this item. raise your hand if youor zoom.

i don't see we will move to rebuttal. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. in response to whats mis tammy said in the only appellate does not want on legalize it anymore she can't do it. i testified before she testified she can't afford it and filed an elis act eviction notice and notify intent to be draw the unit. she is restricted her ability to rent the property anymore. she can't rent it to anyone at this point 4 months from now. so the city's effort to require her to then legalize this unit is. makes not only makes zero sense now the elis act it is not

legally authorized. the mrs. tammy suggested instead of able to with draw her permit and overnight counter permit to legalize whatever work to return this to a single family home has to seek cu authorization. by requiring her to seek the permission of the planning department to upon remember exit the rental market is creating a barrier for from her exiting the rental market this is a right under state law to exit it if complies with the provisions she has done. the very act of requiring c u authorization is unlawful. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. i have a few questions. number one, is there a way for

your client to an explanation for the several instance of alleged lack of contact to planning staff over the course of several years? because i, you know,ure briefing includes information about the attentives and the, related to this but the actual notice we are hearing tonight includes several instances that lead to the violations of your client not responding to planning department inquiries can you peek to this a bit? >> i don't know but fisurmise probably she is not sophisticate in the these matters. an immigrant and english is her second language and they are not easy to navigate. city does in the make them easy unfortunately. >> okay. secondly, is anything preventing your client from filing c u

authorization? i don't know if the planning department allow her to with draught permit they are now forcing her to follow through. she could file a conditional use authorization if they allow the current permit to be with drawn. its my point is that i was trying to make is that just the act of making her seek conditional use is violates state law. >> okay. one more thing i caught. and i know you know this. why is in your brooefring you state that mrs. sieh was not able to pay relocation benefits but is now seeking an elis act e

vision carries i dent cal relocation benefits. why is one of those okay and the other is not. why is she able to pay and not the other the amounts are near i dent cal. iot relocation amounts are near low i dent cal. i believe that the briefing said that she could not afford to pay the relocation benefits and continue to be a land lord under these circumstances. the capitol improvement e vision you get 60 days andpate amount, which is 10 thousand dollars is per tenant or a disability or elderly and let them become in the previous rent. which is the system of san francisco guess with. there are important state lus that say if a landlord it is not want to they are allowed to opt out, which she has done. >> okay but -- if you are upon

clienty goal is with drawing from the market, which would i mean legalizing the unit no longer makes sense if this is the goal. right? >> i guess legalizing in 2 ways one legalize nothing terms of making a legal 2 unit >> sorry that's what i meant. and legalizing adu and elis act are incompatible >> that's right. >> so is the only option seeking a conditional use authorization? to am remove the illegal unit and again is that option not available today? if you wanted do this? >> i don't -- i don't language is anything stopping her from

going and smith the application unless if it gets rejected because of this pending nov. but i i'm challenging the legality of the requirement. gi understand. gi understand this argument. is there anything in the code preventing conditional use authorization to remove an unauthorized unit in the face of an elis act eviction like a restriction on legalizing an adu? i'm not aware and may be someone from planning can speak i'm not aware of anything in the code that addresses that. >> thank you. >> thank you. am questions from commissioner trs vina and commissioner eppler. >> thank you, you mention in the your brief being judge garcia's order in the john hickey brokerage case. >> uh-huh.

>> that applies to a different section of the ked. >> it does the reason it was included the reasoning is similar. jot logic i understand typeset judge grs why's order is the elis act preepts the planning code it requires a k u to owner occupy property already zoned for residential and with drawn from the rental market. pursuant to provisions of the ellis act and imper missable obstacle at a prohibitive process sounds like your client's situation. >> yes. that's yes. that we consider that the act of having to go to the planning department and have them apply criteria and have the discretion over her state rights. yes. >> so when are you offering to

be your client's relationship with the unit in january of 2024? what would it look like. i think you mentioned the tenants will be there until december 23. what this will look look in january 24? >> well, for my cline's sake i hope the unit is vacant at that point and she would then be able to if there is unlawful work there and i'm not sure what it is. she would be able to obtain a permit to return the unit become to its legal use a single family home. >> would not be a rental. correct. if is not a rental when she filed the notice of intent to with draw. she is taking it off the rental market. show changed the status pursuant to her state lurights.

>> is it fair to say that gooi by january of 2024 the unit that hab ocpied at 354 head will no longer be occupied by tenants. if there is a dangerous or oust compliance feature she will seek to fix it and otherwise, it is a single family home. >> well, a couple caveats that's when the 4 mont notice expires the tenants have a right to extend the period in which they occupant unit for additional 8 months they have not. than i have not asked for that yet but within their rights extended an additional 8 months. and in addition they could decide not to leave and she would be in a legal battle in court with the tenants until able to get rid of them.

second caveat is that possible she would need to apply for permit to make undot unpermitted w to change it back to what it was original low built as. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> commissioner eppler? >> sthk. we heard from the planning department about a time line of i will ask i question. sorry about this. >> that way next time. we heard from the planning department about the time line of complaints going with this. so, i will get this clear with your clients action. in 2018 a notice of complaint. and notice of enforcement >> is this correct. . >> >> 2021 we had the notice

required. and notice required the second word on this? >> let me pull that up. sorry about this. notice of required compliance. my shorthand is too short. in 21 and notice of violation of 2023. is this comport with the facts that as you have them? >> before me i have their notify violation on the same time line. no information that contradicts this. when this was for whefrn did your cloinlt invoke the notice to with draw and the ellis act. august 8 of this year. >> august of 2020. this would be after the notice of violation and by definition after the other 3 piece as well. >> the ellis act deals with the business of being a land lord; right ? >> it does. yes. >> does not deal with the status

of dwelling units? >> i'm not sure what do you mean. when one invokes the ellis act they don't destroy dwelling units after. >> they don't does in the do anything physically to the building no. >> says you are no long nert business of being a landlord. and it also creates prohibitions what communities are able to do and landowner's efforts to not be a landlord. where sure. >> right >> as the commissioner lemberg walked through it does not present the taking the -- condition will use process for removing an existing unit whether authorized or not. >> i think that the this conditional use requirement is

preempted. >> yes. >> not on the basis of the case put in the brief this commissioner trasvina was commenting about. this case does not address the unauthorized dwelling unit. when is your authority for president of preemption of this? the language of the ellis act itself, which quoted earlier and there is a long line of case law. that talks about cities creating bear dwroers a landlord in the rental business. soin coin versus city of san francisco. the mall property owners association versus san francisco. >> that we were not putting a restriction on leaving the rental business what we are doing is putting a restriction or a condition on the removal the dwelling unit is this not correct? >> well the purpose of the

conditional use authorization to create and maintain dwelling rental dwelling units which is addressed and the purpose of the ellis act. >> again, the ellis casketp act does in the deal with disposition it says it will not be leased. right. >> i think -- it is remember the does not does conditional use authorization requires the landlord to take these additional steps to in this case to create a legal dwelling unit for rental purposes within their unit. this is coering being a landlord >> coercing is forcing to you say i'm going to place this in a rental does not dial with the structure or the use of space and we are discussing not necessarily the correction of this in order to lease but the removal of the dwelling unit.

clear from the portions of the planning code this deal with the cu authorization the it is -- the purpose of the law housing shortage inform san francisco that is the purpose for enacting these provisions. it is to add different people and new people in housing not to have the single family homeowner occupy 2 units in the same building >> no questions. >> thank you. >> commissioner lemberg has another question. >> i do. one of commissioner trasvina questions reminded me. the rid of mandate you included in your drooefing. i have a few questions. is this writ appealed to the court of appeals? >> i do not -- know the answer.

i'm sorry. >> the absence of evidence appealed to the court was this decision reported in any standard legal reporter >> not a published decision. . why is this binding on this body? i'm not sure certain at this point think this the -- it is a lease the decisionmaking of the superior court of san francisco. you are right. the writ itself says that the san francisco government including planning are and refrain and desist from planning 209.10 to attempt of the petitiontory reside in this address. is this when we are dealing with here? >> either that code section or

address. >> no. this case not applicable to the current case. reasoning can be applied. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. the property owner illegally created based upon rent board records and two unauthorized dwelling units on ground floor. steps needed abate the violations of the owner failed to take the steps in her property remains as a [inaudible] the day her attentives move in the in 2004 and in violation of the planning code. we don't hear the appellate from the flaelt is no illegal

construction. we do not hear from the flaelt is no illegal conversion. when we did hear the owner does in the want to comply with the planning code. pursuant to 317 of the planning code a cu authorization is required remove an unauthorized dwelling unit i'm not aircraft wear this requirement of the planning code is in conflict or violation of state or federal laws. less in terms of the language barriers or challenges we were not aware of that. meant communications were done by e mail and it has been clear from our stand point and is translation service are needed we would provide this we have staff on our department this provides translation in mandarin and cantonese. according to the appellate, the owner filed for ellis act

eviction in august of 2023. that's 2 months after the notice of violation issued. we were not provided with this information. we were not provided with evidence. about the eviction. we can look at that. but for the purposes of this appeal, we believe that there is no error. or the discussion of the za and ask the board uphold the notice of violation on the basis it was properly issued. >> thank you. why thank you i don't see questions. >> anything further from dbi? >> vice president lopez has a question. >> thank you. not guilty abstract if if a building owner kicks off a project and has a permit for

let's say adding a floor to their property that come into -- plannings purview. and they start to planning starts to go down the enforcement path result nothing nov as wise this case. if the building owner at in point says i changed my mind. what happens then? i'm not sure if this is unique to or -- if it would depends on hat nature of the violation is or -- there are a blanket policy. there with machine. >> thank you for the question. it does depend on the type of

violation. the types of violations that are more than others. and housing is one of our priority. of types of enforcement case. it also depends on the time line. that case over all if we have been work width property owner and this case we have been for many years, if the owner wish tos change their mind for reasons financial or not, than i have a responsibility to let us know. and there has been no indication that this is a change that the owner wants to make in terms of how to proceed with abating the violations. it is has been reported she wants to legalize. filed the permit herself with all the subscent updates with the department and the owner, she has been providing us with reasons why there is a drill. covid. deliver with the contractor. delay with getting attentives

agreeing to move out. never an indication that can in the legalizing is one of her preferences. . but if she wants to legalize it we'll work with her on that. we want to make sure we don't want further delays t. has been 20 years this unit in place illegal low. we want dbi to inspect and make sure it is safe for habitation and legalize and remove is the first. just to follow up to that. administrative fees, are those uniformly applied or is there an opportunity for the owner to appeal or request an exception based on financial hardship?

>> well, there are the fee and it is pence. 2 separate items. amounts foes based upon staff time to recover the work we do in spending to investigate and prepare the notices and et cetera. those are those costs. penalties are 250 a day starting on whatever the nov is final and could be reduced based upon the code to no less than -- no less

than 1 huh per day with approval of by this board. of the board of appeals. >> ms. tammy an ordinance change to no less then and there 200? >> so --. the penalty could be reduced no less than 200 that is the recent. >> are 2 one issued june second and an amendment i think amended nov make sure i have the right nov. this nov might have been written before that change i'm guessing. >> thanks. you are welcome. why commissioner trasvina? >> for 354 head is the problem that a unit is there? or that are it is rented?

the unit is there illegal work done without benefits of i permit. and a change of use from one foam 2 family. whether occupied boy a separate family or not. it would be demonstrated to have been. >> thank you. no further questions. i like to clarify regardless of the rental status there is ill willing instruction and plumbing and electric. the purpose of the building code to maintain the safety standards for the occupants the future occupant and neighbors. i would say that if than i move forward with this per notice legalize the unit the plumb and electric and framing will be

inspected and ensure it meets the stoornsd. if this does not move forward there will be a permit to remove illegal construction and the inspector will ensure that anymore unwarrantied plumbing or electrical work was removed or legalizeed make safe the purpose of of this is to ensurety building is safe for the neighboring and occupants >> thank you. >> thank you. why commissioners this matter is submitted. >> all right i will follow -- president swig's tradition of going to the opposite end of the board here and i will start with commissioner eppler. >> okay. thank you. this is an am difficult case because the appellate is in a very position with it. and you know this is not one

that is an easy application or logic. i being it was the right question which was what is the original sin here this needs to be remedied. the circumstance the original sin was the construction of an unauthorized dwelling unit without permits and the city has two interests. an interest in the making sure this dwelling unit is safe and habitable. and has an interest or whatever construction the disposition is safe and habitable and an interest in the unit. the appellate has taken measured to say that she no long arements to be in the land lord business that is her right. however that does not abate the original sin which is the work done without construction the use which is the nov and does

not satisfy the city's interest in the dwelling unit authorized or not and the city has 2 processes. 21 authorize the dwelling unit which is the path and to get rid of it. in the right proper presses followed, of the appellate. and begin this, i'm inclined to deny the appeal started down one and can switch to the other there needs to be something looming over to ensure that happens. we have gone a number of years, 3 years through the process without any change that meets the city's interests in this original sin dwelling unit. commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. i foal for mrs. sieh's situation

i understand you inherited the property and all of the problem this is came with the property including you know -- attentives in unauthorized unit and at a low rent and i understand there is nothing you -- i don't know, retract there is in the nothing you could have done about that but we are left with the referred of what has happened here and it is clear from the record and this clear to me that this -- there were several point in times since 2016. that ms. sieh had the opportunity to address the planning department's concern and address the outstanding issues. change her mind regarding whether the property was going to either goast market under a

rehab ellis act theory. the fact that was begun a week ago today does in the instill confidence in the path that was taken. fact that an appeal was filed after 4 separate notices from the planning department were sent over the course of several years. does not instill confidence in the reloov that the appellate is seeking here and for those reason and several more i would be inclined deny this appeal. i concur with my colleagues on denying the appeal and the left exchange with ms. tammy come mr. green it is helpful to encapsulate the issues going of

given the case this sins are visited upon the child because this is something this happened a long time ago. had the benefit rental income over a period of time now up to this member of the family it get right with the city and the lu. and i would deny the appeal. >> thank you. i concur. i would offer that given the sins of the father and the testimony we heard about -- financial hardship. i would be in favor in supporting the statute minimum. penalties.

how do you feel? i believe we have to grant female on make that ruling. am i correct about that. modifying the nov. so. would be granting the appeal on the condition modified to impose lesser penalty. but there is the new ordinance according to deputy city attorney does apply so not less than 1 huh per day it is no less then and there 200 per dachlt my question is the basis for guaranteeing the appeal under that circumstance. would you upon and -- am i correct in saying it was 250 no

lowered 2 h 2 huh this action limits when the board can do in an appeal. previously you could lower the daily penalty as low as 100 per day the ordinance modifyd that to now only to 200 a day. >> baseline as far as know is 250? >> correct. >> yes. i guess this is what i'm thinking is that -- if our baseline is 250, 200 a day for a year is 75 grand. i would be in favor of the minimums. >> the penalties have in the acrewed they would begin on. once final. when they appealed the nov so -- facility sdikz is put out the

appeals would the penalties would accrue after the effective date of decision. >> right >> but -- are you saying we can't. >> you can modify it but what i'm saying i don't know you talked about aier. >> projecting forward 200 times 365 is 75 grand. >> if i may does not address my point we need to find an error or abuse of discretion in order to make that award. and i'm not seeing what the grounds for this is. >> i -- i think it is it would -- be an abuse of discretion. say its an error. error in interpretation of the planning code. >> i mean i would say based on

the testimony them we heard this evening relate to the financial hardship that minot upon have been taken in account in the nov. in the absence of our stating this in our decision, what i wonder the discretion of the planning department is to the same goal and i think they heard the occurrence we have on this issue as well as the testimony. . is there i wonder whether permissible to ask planning or dbi what discretion they have. >> they need to perform ms. tammy answers how the planning code the planning department applies penalties. sxf ump and mentioned the code

provides factors for thest department to consider. in ooh ploying penalties i can read them to you a list of 10 or 12. whether the upon responsible party proper low identified. whether the acruel dates are accurate. nature of the violation. the amount documented staff time spent in order to secure an abatement. duration of the violation. whether the violation was intentional. wlp the violation result in the financial begin to one or more parties. efforts made boy opinion per to correct the violation. impact of the violation on the communities. and any intans the party has been in violation of the same or similar laws. at the same or other locations in the city. the responsible parties good faith efforts to comply. wlchl easy to correct.

whether the violation of the code result in the displacement of upon 1 or more tenants whether a nuisance or public health hazzard or dangerous condition on the property. whether reverse annual and other factors the za may consider relevant. >> that is a great toorns my question. and given now that have you enumerated the factors, i would be hesitant for us to step in and make a decision. i think this planning department heard our views of the various. i am can have the the planning can come to an appropriate amount. i would like to hear for ms. tammy on this point if any discussion of this or any

reaction. in terms of -- what may be proposeed be assessed. >> thank you for the question inform is the first time i'm hearing from the appellate the owner that there is concerns about the penalties. every time we check in the request her or e mailed her she provided an excuse why she need more time we gave her those extensions to the point we felt there was no more to give. we are not aware she was not interested in paying. she was informed about the penalties. from the beginning through all our notices. >> is thereupon still an opportunity to raise an issue with the department later about

penalty levels? or sorry this it? >> i think this is temperature tht notice of violation. this is the appeal for this. we are trying to figure out whether we can finalize this. now it is pending. >> okay. >> thank you. commissioner eppler i move we deny the appeal on the base i that and uphold the notice of violation on the basis the za neither errored nor abused discretion. >> okay. >> on that motion. vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> aye >> 4-0 and appeal is denied we are moving on to item 5. appeal 23-033 time space alexandria verse the za property 54 huh human geary boulevard the

issuance to time space alexandria of an amended notice of violation. subject property is authorized for movie theatre and a category ahistoric resource construct in the 1923 and identified in the san francisco neighborhood movie theatre historic direct in historical resources and national resource historic accomplice. the planning commission approved cu authorization. for project consisting of renovation of existing historic alexandria theatre build and new mixed use building it pertains to the yes or no negligence of upkeeping the historic property required by conscience of approval in the motion. to date 91 of the permits filed and issued for restoration of the building pursued or complete third degree is complaint 2022012075 and thank you,

welcome. i'm upon counsel for the alexandria group the property owner. i'm here to before you today to discuss i didn't feel the notify violation was issued by the planning department should be rescinded the notice of enforcement issued following the storm in january of this year. caused the blade sievent luxury lax theatre to be detach exclude unsafe. owner obtained emergency permit to remove for safety. community members becameup set. an inspection was convened at the site. the noe was issued. that's short for notice of enforcement. which cited to the 2013nsr of

planning quoed commission motion 188 pay. which my client's predecessor went through a cu process for title of property and the nsr found should be historic preservation to the extear wherefore interior of the property. however. in the planning department's noe than i siteed this the basis for imposing the historic if the broeft notify enforcement which includes the planning commission motion this is the 2013nsr this is the basis for many of the requirements for historic

preservation. the planning d. failed to note this was amended boy a 2019 for cu did in the impose interior requirement its approved the my client to build a community center with a pool and after school center and office for retail professional service. it is imposing the requirement of preserving the blade sign and marquee but those other interior requirements were not imposed. the planning goes through a lengthy time line. they filled site this the bases for enforcement was based on out dated nsr. i thank you is worth note why this the first bases why this should be rescinded buzz it is the precursor to the noe based on the fallacy the 2013nsr was governing.

secondly, the noe imposed time limit the blade sign reinstalled based on the event of the storm date. when reached out to mr. presidenting staff to ask where is this requirement coming from, than i cited to planning code 188b. when you read through that coached, it is a total misapplication of the code section t. allows a property owner in the event of a fire that had something on property pre-existing condition. and, lus them to rebuild or reconstruct they got 18 months to get it done. the planning department came become to us and said, you need to reinstall the sign. which -- is a bigger issue this corp inicides saying we could not tie the of abatement of this

noe to future development of property. we got a quote for the restoration of the marquee and the sign to support the new installments or elements. and the cost will be astronomical. 400 to 500 thousand dollars it needs to be financed and for future development of the property. planning department imposing 18 mont limit to reinstall it so they have a basis to say it is infeasible to meet the requirement if we torch do a future development of the property. this coincides with supervisor chans attempt to land mark the property and foreclose an opportunity for density bonus, ceqa to move forward and build more housing in the city and there was a hearing continued before the historic preservation today on the basis we were appeal thanksgivinging to move

forward with land marking. again the basis for imposing reinstallation of the sign with 18 month system misapplication of the planning code. also, the noe had loose time lines saying work with the planning department. upon i attached several commons i will not bore you. back and forth to negotiate the terms of an abasement schedule. we did not hear back from planning after they asked for resunrised abatement proposal and we thank you no news was good news let's get on work and then the noe converted issued know noe on the basis we never provide a revised abatement schedule. we did.

this is noted in exhibits j. which shows we did submit i revised abasement schedule the planning department never responded to. when we point third degree out we appreciate if you rescind this nov we did reply and never heard become from you. than i issued know amended nov that just changed the title to amended but did in the correct the referred we had respondedd and said we failed to respond still. on this basis we request. rescind the nov and -- stendz become to plan to work out reasonable and compliants for our adherence to the code. thank you. >>. we will hear from the planning department.

>> tina tammy for planning perform 54 huh geary in the neighborhood/commercial zoning. construct in the 1923, graphics, please. the theatre is a historic resource. theatre is significant cannot with individual resource as well as a contributor to the historic district. the notice of violation issueod john 15, 2023. violation of conscience recorded on the property. the condition that i like to emphasize is condition 23. in motion number 18853.

part of the cu authorization. for case number 2004.0482ce. this condition stated, the project sponsor provide strict security and regular maintenance of the park lot and the theatre building to prevent vandalism of the building's theatre interior and protect the resource. in example, architectural feet and you ares details until time project is completed. the 2004cua project, proved in upon 2013, was to construct a new 4 store mixed use building on the previously existing theatre parking lot on the north end of the property.

the project include renovation and condition version of the existing luxury luxury theatre in a single screen theater with retail on ground floor and new restaurant on the second floor. soon after the cua was approve in the upon 2013 the permit for the mixed use development the 37 new dwelling units over ground floor retail was issued in 2015. the permit to renovate of the issue in the 2016, nest work for the permit was ever performed to the site. in this same year the property owner filed a new cu authorization to change the previously approved cua and the use of the theater to a new center on the ground floor and learning center on the second and new professional offices on a now created third floor. while this later 2016cua was

approve in the 20 then the associated building permit was not pursued through the review and approval process. this 20 upon 16cua and the approved motion is invalid. currently, the theatre building is vacant. there is no entitlement or permit for work. and the mixed use development on the north side of the property is completed, the theatre remains vacant as it has been since it closed in 2004. based upon complaints with d. building inspection there are concerns about safety of this building. reasonable the property owner filed a permit to remove the blade sign flonlt of the theatre cites public life safety dangers.

building demolition by neglect is a concern for this building. we have seen in the past when property ordinance allow i build to deteriorate to a point demo is necessary or restoration is unreasonable. the nov is clear we want the owners to comply with the recorded conscience. want to see regular maintenance and upkeep of the theatre. and the architectural features and historic details protected. when we are asking for in the nov is the defined schedule of when stablingization and protection of the building can happen. despite numerous attempts and multiple notices than i have in the provided to us. kelly wong from the plan department attended a joint site inspection with dbi and share the site photos taken at this

inspection. pause the time. . >> time is paused. >> thank you. tina. good afternoon vice president lopez and commissioners. kelly wong code enforcement manager. so i will use the projector also. go ahead y. great. joy conducted a site visit with dbi. thank you. since then we are not received evidence of work toward bring thanksgiving property in compliance i like to highlight the severe conditions and occurrence we found. we have the theatre in over all poor condition americaee is missing elements. mesh installed years ago failed.

and not maintained. and this projects overnight public sidewalk falling ocjects can hit pedestrians. here is another view of the marquee. this is the underside where the mesh is again missing over the areas where it is over the sidewalk posing a life safety hazzard. >> here is the ceiling in poor condition. after demo this was never covered or pitchered to just care for the building. a security fence installed required by the city not main tained. failing corrosion at the base and potential low becoming a hazzard.

the going inside the blgdz exterior wall. the ceiling has been damage exclude collapsing and the with you is in poor condition. >> pealing paint. >> 30 seconds >> and bilbgt cal growth. the bottom of the wall. >> portions of the interior ceilings collapsed and if this continuous more failures will occur and ceilings. and here is the hole at the wall covered up boy a garbage can and showing that birds are coming in and out of the building. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. >> you will have time in rebuttal now dbi. nothing? okay. move on to public comment. is there anyone in the room withhold yes. >> you changed your mind.

>> methodue green with dbi. . just to clarify a vacant building. there is an ordinance requiring registration and maintenance of vacant buildings includes min taint ordinance 5219. maintain interior in i marine prevents damage boy element and likes from garbage or debris and the exterior on grounds in compliance with all codes. it is in the done we had a site visit today and moving forward with our own code enforcement process. irirrelevant haven't to planning but background. i'm available for questions you miff >> thank you move on to public comment anyone in the room.

anyone on zoom the number end nothing 8739? you mineed to press star 6. go ahead, >> good evening. commissioners i'm woody labounty the president and coe of san francisco heritage and a neighbor of the alexandria theatre building. i live 3 blocks away. i have been involved in one way or another with this project since the theatre close in the february of 2004. we are 6 months away from the 20 year mark of this a closed and neglected building. through various ownerships and 10 years of poor district one supervisors i add vo katded for a future property. 2 projects approved by the city for the luxury lax theatre in the 2 decades. neither come to fruition and the property entirely nest glekted to the point of boundary and want endangerment to the public.

ownership allowed build how does and that was supposed to finance the work on the historic building they are claiming they will do now. if than i get a housing project approved. this is in the a property owned by a couple or a church ownership nonprofit you might feel sympathy. these are investors that weres fail in the responsibilities and obligations to the property they never active on the space and shown no interests in the neighborhood. i know a principle made by the city to purchase for affordable house thanksgiving was reject the. no one oshg poseed housing but another promised project which might take years if at all does not mean that promise mean the owner able to get, way with letting the historic resource in the neighborhood most prom nanlt

properties crumble. no more bricks. raft richmond. hold the people responsible and reject this appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there further public comment on this item. raise why you were hand. we will move on to rebuttal and hear from the appellate's attorney. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. try to be brief with respect to the claim that the 2019nsr invalid building permit not issued. in religion i'm not sure they have a section to site it is recorded against title to the property states that am amends and replaces the prior issued worn and the permits therapy associated with the 20 then nsr were cancelled out. by this rational should not apply either. whereby to the condition of the property.

you know ownership is taking steps where they comprehend but we are hand strung here. big bad corporations or llc owning the property it takes money to -- maintain a property and this property was has been in i decrepe ed state for 20 years. they are dog when they can to work "city to make this a safe and active space but -- we are strung boy dealings with the city. with respect to with respect to -- the standpoint that the call are had regarding enough is

enough. predecessor ownership, ployed for the first change of use approved. that took until 2013 that took place my clients took possession in 2015. it is cua it approve what was approved for the mixed use project involved a community pooch was not the conditional use was not granted until october of 2019 the pandemic hit 5 months later notoriety 2-1/2 year application press financing fell through the lending circumstances changed. then you are trying to we submitted for a density bonus. city permitting process and doling with the city was difficult in the arabic stages of the pandemic you remember the blue beam application system office chaos. there was a misconception my client is derelict property owner here i think the record

will reflect if you look that there hen efforts through the the press to find ways to react i have the safe. met with resistance from the city every step of the way. thank you. why a question from commissioner lemberg? >> thank you, i have several questions. number one when did your client purchase the upon property. >> time space alexandria in 2015. >> were they directly linked to the owner before this or was it a sale like an on market snael i believe an arm's length transaction. >> so, your client purchased the property 2 years after your cua was granted; correct? roughly. >> yes. >> okay. >> so the 2013c u authorization

for all of the plans to come to fruition. it did in the, peer and no condition tact with i sign company until 2018 is this correct? >> i don't believe so i think there was prior contact i referenced the 2018 because it evidences the cost of the to refurbish. was there a previous contact? i will ask a clear q. was this sign company condition tacted prior to the end of resting period in 2016 >> i believe. why was in the work completed

until 2018? it was can have the prohibitive it do repairs without a future use of the property to finance. >> how would you know if that was true if you did not get the answer. tht submit i prosecute void in the my brief i wanted it to be most current and most updated with respect to current costs. i don't know. whether or not they have a prior estimate in 2015 and 16. you state have you not gotten a single further estimate since 2018. fact in january of this year the -- sign was -- you were forced take it down? no we got several estimates and arrow sign is back on board for awhile and resubmitted plans for

restoration or we have that are from air over to the city. >> is there a recent estimate from 2023 for the can have the of replacement for the sign. gi believe 480 thousand. >> why was that not submitted. we are doing restoration in face else phase said we need to know the scope. do you not have this with you tonight. >> i see your client, i don't know. >> here wrochl this is york i'm the owner. i can answer in of your questions. this we own this property from 2015. and then we did the next door the mixed use.

so, 2013 commercial use the what you mentioned have different plans. that is why. but we did not want to go with that previous approval then we have a different plan that we communicated with the planning so the planning of the time issue a permit asks us to maintain marquee and the blade sign. we got 2017. permit to only maintain the blade sign and marquee. not interior. that is the permit already. the p at the time we did get the quote from arrow sign that sign company try to. >> what time? >> i around 2017-18. after we got permit. permit is the same time.

in [inaudible] 17-18 time, too. witness we got the quote we started construction. the planning and building knows. construction started around in 17 or. construction on what? on the blade sign and the marquee. it started to do maintenance per this permit. and that took about a 2 months. and during the construction maintain the sign. reenforcement of change some piece of the blade. and the arrow sign company found because it is a long lasting condition it it is corroded and the structure cannot am support it based on the plan for you permit the sign permit. that is why than i ask us to stop. cannot continue for previous permit because of structure corroded.

those on the blade sign and marquee. so that's around 2018 >> just to clarify the reason that construction did not continue is because you did not want to pay for it. >> no. yea. because they did a several month's construction and found the structure cannot continue buzz it needed whatever the new design for the structure for the new support. at the time. >> that does in the make sense. if you starred construction on previously submitted plans to restore i sign, why would that noscaught prior to the beginning of construction? why was this 2 months after the initiation on a sign and then 2 months later you uncovered the fact that the connections to the building are not found this does

in the sound right. >> that is when happened the design is from engineering and the engineering and architect company with the design company. witness than i start real construction that always happens any construction. once they doing construction at a site of the conscience they found it different element from previously assessment that happen very, everywhere often >> okay. >> i want to go become to what the other question you your attorney was in the able to answer a more recent post january 2023 mate from the sign company regarding costs for restoring it. >> yes. >> do you have this. >> i think we have it here with mow we did sends it. >> we have all that. if after we work with planning department we actually. i'm stick with the questions i'm

asking. okay. and gabbing to your council for a moment. you stated you criticized planning in the including the upon 2019nsr alleged low corrected nsr in their briefing did you lead this? i don't recall. i have been confused as a result. >> no , i mentioned during my opening it was in the included a caught later after briefing submission. i didn't seat original nsr, either >> it was was included in exhibit c. >> okay. that's the noe references and the noe reference the 20 then nsr and incorporate and attach today is all in exhibits c. >> thank you for this next question. you also pretty strategy low criticized supervisor chan's

office for canceling a meeting. however, i caught that there was an extension of time to file documentation with the planning department during this period of time. did you notice supervisor chan that was not an extension of time >> yes. >> why was this not include instead briefing i saw an e mill it planning saying things but in the supervisor chan ownership anyone copied on this e mail. should be. i believe she was cc'd on the same e mail with the planning department. joy don't think that was correct if not there say followum e mill we explained that states there was a misunderstand and wed out a deal with planning. >> okay. >> thank you. and we never heard become. if you like i can forward this to you >> all right.

next question. you mentioned this -- the -- in order it finance this restoration now. you would need to include it in the in future development financing and i heard several things regarding applications for density bonuses for husbanding at the site but what i have in the seen is -- i guess my question is why was the cost of the historical restore agsz which was known at the time your client purchased the property buzz there was already planning motion and -- recorded nsr stating the terms this they were required to maintain and restore all of the historical aspects. why when applying for the original project financing was were those costs not included?

>> as time guess by during permit application presses cost and scope of work changes. >> normal. >> was this included instead original financing for the housing project that was built? >> the original. with the other watch the parcel. i have to peek to york. i was not involved in this process. >> i mean i continuing is your job ton these thingis will pass on this for now. >> one left question . based on the record i see a clear narrative here i want to ask this quest. did you client intend to rebuild and restore the theatre. and having locked at the photographs submitted by mrs.

wong from planning. it is/khrer this no work has been done for i time. so was the intent there or was this just a facade to, to, you know do a build a housing project and not comply with the rest of the requirements that -- planning issued? >> i think my client intend today follow through with the preservation requirements under the 2019nsr the title of the property the blade sign and marquee. >> but why was not work done prior? your cline owned it for 4 years and i mean based on the photo its is clear no work was done for this 4 year period. you think there was you deponent need a permit for all interior work when we went on a site inspection in january of 23.

there was -- openings and broken windows and a hole in the roof and they were instructed they took mitigating measures that did not require permits. what measures the boarding up. put a tarp over the officer on site. you know the building does come ploy with the building ordinance it registers every year. most in the city don't that are vacant they were showing they had hazzard insurance and their placard with the owner contact information. made effort its weep and had the gate up. this was a long permitting press. look on the mr. presidenting information maup will see there was constant low movement, submissions. >> i agree there were am submissions to the planning department and the building and db oishgs what i don't see is quint work done on the permit xis feel like plannings brief

lays out a time finely which no work was done on several permits. is that -- am i missing something there? >> i money mystery predealt my cline's ownership j. what about the within this is don'ts. >> there were several of them. somewhere contingeant on approvals that took 2 years and commence w on restoration they determined the estimates were off and could in the move forward. but -- still does not teem seem any work was done is this correct? no work done on most of the permits your client filed. i don't think i can answer your question. may be you were client can it is

an important question. i believe we have done some work. the first work we explained the fwent 17 permit halfway. and then because of a structure condition we stop that is one thing. then we -- got a big project and that was 2019 per nit is included all the work together. and -- this is one thing. second thing for graffiti. we own the property 8 years so far. we constantly clone it almost every several months. the picture showing you almost can take a graffiti picture any time. once removed come back. so there is time lag different low. heard to tell when was remove

exclude come back againful and so i believe that is unfair to say we never dhn work any work for maintain had property this is incorrect. so -- >> if it it is inyekt no permits were completed with certificates of final inspection? >> there were several barriers. >> that's not my question. my question is were any finalized. some were. >> i think w what you imploy they file building permit under the pretense of trying to get, way with saying we are making an effort in my experience people that do this all they do is file they don't obtain it when you obtain you pay. you understand you pay but have you to dot work you are agreeing to do. you think it shows there was good faith to follow through with the work. am good faith effort implies

doing the work you say you doll and i have a list of permits obtained after your client purchased the property. i'm not going to name them all tell take too much time. i think there is one of them completed. from the photos there was no work done and is the for five years after your own contractors stated, this is in the, tamped to the build and waited 5 years

and did nothing. >> commissioner lemberg. >> sorry. can we stick to questions i'm done with questions. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you i want to express the observation that this record presented meanders all over the accomplice. what i want to ask you is did you did your client take on a responsibility to hire community liaison. >> yes and security and ump keep

was that taken on? to the extent than i could, >> yes. >> was it agreed to which >> or carried out. the carried out to the extend than i could. >> there is an obligation for security and upkeep >> it was record in the the nsr, yes. why great. >> and the -- communication with mr. i haveysa, that you say you -- you -- the amended nov, yes. talks about the planning department does not as well an indication from you or from your client on a couple matters getting i date. for the permit to be filed. and -- corrected action taken.

du clear up from the department whether they received your communication? they acknowledged receipt after immediately after issuing the nov i provided them the e mill and said00 eye sent this on. may 8. >> and your understanding of the requirement related this communication to provide dates when than i would happen y. that was the agreement. wield provide a time line for mile stones and abatement. does the notice of violation say that the abatement was in the under taken? >> it state third degree they -- it stated we failed to reply to planning e mail requesting a resunrised abatement schedule was my may 8e mill to planning we never responsed until after the issuance of the nov.

>> ply reading is this they say you did in the, bait not schedule you provided a schedule not that you did the actual abatement the final question, on the planning code 188b. >> yes. on the interpretation baptist 18 month period. is it your understanding this your upon client as 18 months get a permit or to correct the problem with the sign. based on misapplied code section. will wham is a correct application of the code section?

>> correct application of the code section would be i provide a scenario a pre-existing, nonconforming balcony in a district that does not allow and your house burns down if you want to rereasonable doubt this balcony you could but rebuild it within 18 months. they upon tried say they could impose as a requirement on my owner to reinstall in 18 months not right. >> thank you. why thank you. >> a question from vice president lopez. >> if we could zero in on the specific construction and permit for the sign that was halted once the structure difference became clear. what happened after. was there engagement will with dbi. to foil a new permit base on the

new s that became clear during that construction project y. york could speak better i will let himmance >> that's the intention. at once for 20 upon 19 permit for this 3 store that he include all the marquee and sign together. this was our intention y. okay >> got it, thank you. >> thank you. and no further questions. we will hear from the planning department of the thank you. jury room what we are asking for is the property torn work in good faith with the city abiding by conscience set forth for the property we are not asking the owner to submit a project.

although we would like it see a project so the building does not sit vacant. our ask for the owner to take immediate action to keep the property safe and secured and keep the theatre from further deterioration until a future project is identified, approved and constructed. the response to our request to date has been vague. nonspecific and open ended. it is clear the property owner does in the want to commit to construction completion. in the for assessing the physical and deteriorating conscience of the property. in the for protecting the building from further decay and not for restoring the historic sign. we asked the board deny and uphold the issuance of the notice of violation on the basis the za did in the error or abuse

her discretion. >> thank you. a question from commissioner lemberg. i want to clir foil what plan happenings view was on the 2019nsr and what affect that has on -- on the 2013 a planning motion and nsr? >> thank you. yes. the -- the -- the -- second fee for the theatre project was approved by planning commission. buzz there was no subsubsequent building permit, to vest the project this project expired and invillid. we go become to what has been vestd and recorded which is 2013 motion for cua. >> thank you. for clir ifkdz when is the time line in which member has to file

a comupon pliant permit. under a new coa? >> 3 years. it is clear they don't want to file even if they were within the time frame that project is not something they are interested in pursuing. the end of the three year period does this xoir or has to be a subsequent notification. unless they foil for extension or new cua s. there i way they can turned the cua. >> i don't believe so. >> thank you. why thank you. we have a request from commissioner trasvina. for the benefit of the property owner and mr. well bounty and the public interested in this, and for us can you describe what

denoticing the appeal and compliance with the planning department what that looks like? >> sure. i will just get water. >> we are looking for a time line this spells out the w we would like to see them do. but add horse to the conscience which is how you will maintain the building. so it is safe and secured. that's it. >> >> thank you. >> thank you. anything further from dbi? >> i have one question for and just to follow occupy that.

so, for clarity you are not looking for a time line of remediating existing you are looking for a time line to don comply with obligations not just bring things to a certain state but maintain that state in the future? >> this morning. we want to make sure there is no further delay and not another 20 years go by with neglect society building can be restored. to the significance. >> thank you. >> thank you. dbi? >> good evening >> matthew green with dbi. i like to point out that do you to the lack of maintenance for the blade sign in january of this year, there was a life safety complaint the january storms created a hazzard and the building the sign was unsafe and

required dpw to barricade the walk so no one was hurt. wrote a notice of violation and result in the i building permit to comply with notice of violation removal due to hazzard caused by the storms allowed them on dismantle the sign and retory it later the electric of maintenance is already credited a life safety issue that was brought forward in january and we want the building to be secured and maintained so well is in fire or other life safety hazzard that could risk of the neighborhood. >> okay. >> thank you. commissioners this merit is submitted. >> >> commissioner eppler? >> i thought under the protocol it is you would star next and

work down. >> i -- i feel like the appellate is nibbling around the edges when is necessary to comply and has not got there and i foal compelled to deny i don't feel department or the za abused discretion in this case. >> as vice president lopez correct low pointed out, i went into deliberations too early in this matter. and as a result i have said a lot of what i wanted say at this stage of the hearing. i don't believe that i certainly don't believe that -- the za are your errored in her discretion. i don't think that the remedies

that planning is seek were unreasonable or or inpromote. and i think this you know i think this than i prebl could have web had the -- ability of plan to go higher. i suspect could have been more then and there this. and would like to see the historic luxury lax theatre if the f in the stored maintained until manage help its is in the this now. and anybody when has gone down ger net left 15 years knows this. it is a big land america that we're all familiar with. and i -- remember going to the alexandria as a kid and have in the gone since high school.

so -- it it is it makes mow sad that we have a develop 30 has in you know the ability to follow through with a giant housing project but in the any of the agreements that they greed to prior. regarding restoration and maintenance of the historic theatre. and the only one in this area. i would like to see it move forward and in the vacant forever. and -- i would deny the appeal the planning department's and suspicion is reason and i don't

find error in the reaching the position it is take. i commend and appreciate the appellate intentions for the luxury luxury but intention and carrying out fulfilling the obligations that the appellate under took and sounds from the testimony from the appellate's everyone that it fell short with picture and planning testimony. i would deny the appeal. i concur and echo the sentiments. i based on the record and testimony would in the be able to say that remember this faith come into the conversation in my mind. i do think that those intentions should be acted upon and with this i think i will move to deny

the appeal on the basis this the there was no error in the nov. are you making that motion. >> yes. we have a motion from vice president lopez to denight appeal canup hold on the basis the za did not error or abuse discretion on that motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> appeal is denied. did we want to take a short break before the next item? yea. let's do this. >> how long. >> until 10 minutes. >> do 7:20. thank you for your pat >> today is august 16th issue

2023. item 6 appeal. neighborhood association. incorporated with dbi planning approval 2550 irving street appealing the issuance on june 26 to the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation of a site permit. 90 dwelling unit build with zero basements. we will hear from the appellate first. >> good evening.

[inaudible] sunset neighborhood association you will hear from doctor to beingicologist at ucsf given the current data and findings of indoor air and soil have an or contamination. that poses i significant health risk and need to are remodeiated. you will hear from dan grassmech who has worked on dozens of projects with dt sd and testified the handling on this has been irregular. this remediation is necessary given the findings and that the preferred remedy is soil vapor extraction. will talk about how the designing the soil vapor

extraction can be done without drilling the project. the luhas not changed since the february hearing. . is this board has the jurisdiction to condition approval of the project on implementation of remediation prior to beginning construction. with this, i will turn it over to the doctor. >> good evenin board of appeals, i'm a physician toxicologist and professor of medicine. i have been asked to provide my opinion relate to residential exposure to tce. for mid sunset neighborhood association. tce in the soil and home in the neighborhoods wells at the site of i future how doing

development. some of the lefrls adverse screening level set. tce exposure causes cancer long-term with imper se, merit and neuroperformance development and reproduction. children and people of child bearing age are the most susceptible. children drink more fluids, eat more food. breathe more air and larger skin surface. child's diet differs from, did you tells. infants exposed to it in breast milk. adding the exposure increases risk. >> there are become grounds for genetics and lifestyle. no justification to add to this there is an opportunity to prevent exposure which is preable to be dealing with

long-term health out come. question we should ask is if we have the ability to prevent exposure why would we not. il turn it offer to dan who will see how [inaudible]. thank you. >> yes. good eaching dan a work with apex companies. i'm i will be speaking regards to the use active soil extraction to clone thumb site. my opinion this implementation of active soil vapor extraction system would have an immediate impact to low are the concentrations of the subject property and the neighboring residential properties. the guidance documents call for active remediation as a remedy for this situation and this mitigation is an engineering control considered after active

remediation impmremented the full extent. project proponent claims no source is identified. as a project site and offer no primary source yet to be identified. a secondary source of impact continues to persist and neighboring properties. reflecting in the declaration boy don moore the of investigation at the site was flued. and appears to designed to not identify the primary source. regarding this concept of secondary primary source. the source arrive from multiple environmental process and this case long-term e vice presidenteration of tce from a liquid yielded a soil vapor concentration. if this is allowed to persist it may impact health of future

occupantos subject property and current of the neighborhood as shown to impacted for democracied it is confirmed by air testing. >> this concept of identify primary, secondary and contaminants are out lined in the guidance documents. development of conceptual site is the first step. >> project proponent climb this is implementation of remediation would not improve conditions in the neighborhood. worsen drawing contammy nigz on the property from yet to be identified off site sources and not present of mitt gigz and waste financial resources. >> considering tce is exclusive in soil guess and the descriptions of soils under the site the best remediation is suited to the site and remove most of it impacted material

within weeks to months. there is concern remediation will draw contamination from property on to the property from [inaudible] yet to be identified source. focus is impacts that are on the south side of urban street. active remediation systems with be operate in the i manner to limit off site draw. a 5 day pilot study would generate sufficient data to develop the full scale design for a system that would mitt ghit potential for drawing off site chemical vapors on the property. >> evaluation of construction. >> i'm sorry. >> you have 30 seconds left. >> okay. >> i can completely thrown meet operation costs to install remediation system come per seed

tech notes by the [inaudible]. this cost suggests tell cost less then and there technology intended address. left but most important. on sight vapor mitigation system will protect inhad been tans only maintained on site. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you we have questions from commissioner trasvina and lemberg. >> thank you very much for your testimony. i men asking my questions may be better fripped to the ucsf prosecute feszor but could be to you i will ask my questions. the developers make a lot of the pin tht source of the contestimonyination is not on the premesis, but there is upon some on the premesis? >> yes, that's correct >> what is the significance of

the source some place else when it is on the property? is there any? >> there is irrelevant not significance because the secondary source the soil vapor in soils under 2550, are going to persist. it is recalcitrant comfound will in the decompose 'ly on its own tell impact human health wrchlt you say the soil vapor extraction this property is i dole for this. why, can you explain this? >> for tw proirm reasons. first of all, the soils on the site are described [inaudible]. a very this type of soil has a lot of only void pace in this

soil structure and pockets of air temperature is transmiss itch to air flow. interaction is a glorified vacuum cleaner. installing wells, applying i vacuum and with drawing that air space out of structure. and this press removes the vapors from that soil. second factor is this pc e is volatile temperature is in the vapor phase. the gas that we will remove from that soil. >> right and the system of the [inaudible] have described, you say need to bes maintained. on soil on soil vapor ectraction how long does this take before it is over? being from all of the evidence and data offered or reviewed. most if in the all of the pc e that is present in soils on the

site are in the vapor phase or gas phase. my experience would suggest that we would see mass removal and concentration reduction in this soil within 3-sick months. i am will an engineer i'm conservative. a 6-12 mont operation you would be done if done in 3 months finish taftic y. grit. >> the questions i have. i see men numbers associated with the micrograms per cubic meter for pc e's can you describe what is -- on the property opposed to had is safe? well, i need some assistance on this. there are screening levels.

i think one question is had is safe? if you tolerate for humans a chemical exposure public mental health will say well is in safe level lead it is not an additive. i think can be explained from an individual perspective orave picture's perspective we will not say we will tolerate this. we are trying to get this to the lowest amount. reason is buzz it is in the pc e a child and adult is exposed. we have second hand motor vehicle and environmental exposure. it is everything counts if we have the opportunity to remove one thing. smoke, lead we will. so there are the thresholds and what has been measureded to when

is locked at as screening levels. others look at as people get expose urs then the associations of developmental risk and cancer. there is in the a level below this you are grit and above this you are upon it is an association. >> as i read the developer's testimony they said there is found 1700 micrograms. and as i read 2 micrograms. and -- machine else said.06. can you poke to this level of these numbers or someone else. >> sure. >> center for environmental oversight. the residential screening levels by the state california is. 46 micrograms per cubic meter.

this statute indoor airplane screening level the level in gas are higher. associated with this the gas level is 16 micrograms per cubic meter the highest level north of irving on formy pc u property was 1700. it is more then and there 100 times the screening level. you may hear from the detsc than i have the choice of going boost screening level inform my experience, experience of everybody on our team the -- in the guidance the starting point is the 16 or.46. and then if there is a reason you go higher. you don't start with 100 times that, which is what dt krshgs sc is saying. 16 versus 1700 for the soil gams

levels for commercial are different of 5 times as much people are not in an office as much as in a home. the commercial indoor airline will screen suggest 2. had twice this when it was in prescription that's why they evacuated the building and the commercial soil gas levels are 67 based on the fact people are not in commercial buildings as much as residents >> sorry. 16 for remember soil vapor. soil vapor screening level. >> and the mrem premesis up it 1700. >> yes. >> thank you. >> we have a question. are you finished commissioner trasvina >> commissioner lemberg. >> i don't know the appropriate person who feels qualified to answer the questions. my goal is narrow down the issues because i know we have a

lot of the same documents and the same data presented this was presented to the body in february. when the previous appeal was heard on this property. and i want to try to narrow it down as much as possible. because we have reviewed all of the things that were in existence prior to february's hearing. my first question is, being as demolition occurred, after the february hearing, was decide, and now there is an application for site permit. has anything did anything change during the demolition process. or is there a new data that is presented as a result or during the dem ligdz press not aware of the reason i'm asking is because we were given over a thousand page of hard data and 4 attorney

its is like ice. for give me if it was in the included and i missed it. the major thing that new information we got is they could not find the piping. that may have been the cause of i like if miracle cleaners on the property was the source of it on the property. they look exclude did in the find it. they also did -- did in the dot testing we asked for billsod the albright site they used a maps. my organization believes is designed not to find a problem. had one soil sample. but did in the dot soil vapor sample on the miracle footprint. under the bridge we're not asking for sampling we are asking for clone up based on the information everybody had for a couple years.

>> thank you. >> and then similar but and different question kwfrmg environmental issues apart from the pre-existing pc e contamination that we did in the hear about or that was not addressed at our hear nothing february. >> typically construction site like this you are concern body dust and other e missions in my opinion the site management plan for addressing that the air monitoring and dust control are satisfy to address those issues. >> the -- the actual we don't think the construction will jen rit contamination in the neighborhood. >> okay. >> that was my question. >> so. >> the risk is vapor intrusion to the future residents of the affordable housing and to the neighbors who are already expose today levels above the screening

level. to begin to when you said more there is not the appellates are not contending that the construction of of this new building is going on cause additional problems than exist >> people talk about the diesel fumes from trucks that you will find any site that is not the base i of the appeal. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the permit holder. i stand before to you address the climbs made by the appellate i'm david president can cofounder of pregnant forward per ins.

i described investigations of the site environmental condition and explained the source of contamination existed on site we would have discovered temperature during the hearing appellate said conclusions were inappropriate a limited test nothing the footprint. in response in following the denial of the previous of appeal formulated a plan to determine source of contamination was in the affordability. despite our conviction to date. agreed to conduct the investigation. the skoecht multifaceted investigation was several methods to determine the condition tammyination including membrane probe. an accepted screening tool identified concentration in soil, gas and groundwater over

the hole. the inspect low desunrised know prop executed and documented by path forward t. is note worthet skoecht investigation pair les the investigation made for ewe likewising it at the former clonery property found in the may third 23 approval. and subskenl to td sd the scope of work and conducted was robust and above and beyond in collecting the data at appellate requested proposal. the result of the investigation were upon pc e not detect in the soil, groundwater or soil guess in the historical building affordability. this conclusion corroborates our statements investigations unlikely to yield a different

result. since the formulation the appellate clean update low levels and, certed this remediation proposal over looked. this is in the accurate. the use of it under went evaluation during the formulation and endorse am of the plan. addressed the request for the responsiveness sum row to the draft plan. related queerys during meeting in john and august of 2022 and why not appropriate during the demolition perimism as discussioned targets soil a reservoir for condition tammy nanlts or mull amounts of can contamination. both rent and historical investigations affirmed the site [inaudible]. significant or residual.

the presence from contaminated soil off sight the soil gas concentrations [speaking fast]. and are at levels that lead to the suspension of sbe operations due to inefficiency. even if it could extract low levels in on site vapor the off sight origin applies potential for post sbe concentration rebounds. of the risk of stating obvious the pc e source nev.eds to be found and remediated so it stops acting as a source. does not support the prescription on the 2550 site. it supports on going off sight investigation to identify the pc e source. in addition they condition firm construction of the on site build and installation of vapor intrusion system will not impede

investigation or neighborhood remediation and should proceed. persistence scrutiny at the property is unwarrant exclude inefficient in terments of gentlemanal and private resource. efforts should be made to direct focus to other locations to address the source of contamination without delay of the site. i yield. >> cj counsel for the permit holder. we describe in the our brief sb35 prohibit this is board from denying the site permit. planning department determine today is eligible for sb35 and no one challenge today. dbi reviewed the application and found it was consistent with the project approved boy planning and state luis clear. this board must deny the appeal

not just the legal interpretation the california d. house and community development, hcd the agency responsible for enforcing the housing laws made this in february letter to the board and reaffirm today in the letter in connection with this pel. remember sb35 mandates the project allows to proceed. i do want top say a couple point this is david made about environmental test and conditions that are important. first the project site now ruled out the source of pc e and the did thea is definitive. and second to your previous questions commissioner lemberg, construction of the project will not limit or under mine the ability of anyone to continue investigating the source and will in the exacerbate conscience in the neighborhood. again the source is not on the site. the soil extraction system the

appellate is demanding will not remediate the problem or address concerns about their homes because the site is not the source. >> finally. i want to emphasize the importance of the project to the city. since 20194400 district 4 residents, played for affordable house and of those 49 received housing and none in d for you. now new afford annual units add said to d4 for over a decade. we request that you deny this appeal. >> okay. thank you. i don't see questions at this time. we will hear from the planning department of >> good evening. rism from planning department. happy to be here i was a former board of appeal's member a decade plus ago.

understand your work and the topics you grasp i'm here with tina tammy to answer questions have you on our approval of this project under the planning code and the provisions of sb35. and as you know and heard sb35 was enacted provide an approval path way for housing projects affordable housing project this is meet criteria. it is obviously a significant change. on how we entitle affordable housing projects. this process approximately remutual discretionary planning hearings and approvals and removes the requirements for ceqa. this project would have gone through a cu approval by planning. a state density bonus flufl avoided throughout sb35 press. among the eligibility requirementeds are of the project's must meet all of the

planning codes. it must be code compliant. this project takes budget state density bonus allowed additional density on top of the code. to be eligible it in the not demo historic resources, must not demo rent controlled housing and other prosecute visions this project motes. i think there was no question this project motes the criteria and eligible for sb35. sb35 put in accomplice to assist jurisdictions in meeting state mandated housing goals. and the plans we pass in the the housing element. in our case, 82,000 units of new housing in the city overnight next 8 years. 45,000 affordable. it was put in accomplice to reduce the time for approval of affordable house to reduce the costs of approving the housing.

sb35 has work in the speegding up approval of housing we are approving affordable how doing project in months instead of years in reducing the over all costs. of the projects through the reduced time lines. we are seeing increased number of projects taking advantage of the approval. path way. i think most city sponsors affordable housing projectless will take advantage sb35. we continuing is critical to meet our how doing needs. of that said, it is and approval path way does in the remove this project from city and state environmental clean up regulations and requirements. sb35 does in the intrefr with the work of dph. it does in the limit the ability to pass new regulations if we don't think the and regulations are wing we can pass now regulations to require additional clone if you mean we

don't thbl is the case. you heard dt sd continue its carry out role as regulator for the test and clone up of this site. issuance of the permit will not limit from continuing to do their job. in our work we rely on dt sd and dph. this would have been the case if this project were not subject to sb35. we are getting here in a shorter time frame. >> we understand the neighbors concerns and the neighborhood concern about the contamination on the site and encourage them on work with dtsc we are happy to participate but not expert in this. if we can be of assistance. but we have confidence in the work of dtsc and the others and urge to you reject the pel and allow this project to continue. i will turn it over to ms. tammy

to discuss more on details. thank you. tina tammy for planning department. this permit is construct a new 7 story 100% affordable rental housing project with 90 units for households earning between 30% and 80% of average median income. the belling measure 73 feet in height excludeing stairs and elevator penthouses. under state luqualifying projects like this are entitleed concessions and waivers from the development stoornsd of the planning code. in addition when lected in a half might transit stop projects relieved of density krells and receive i height increase up to

3 additional story or 33 feet. 2550 irving received waivers and concessions including but in the limited torous rear yard. open space and dwelling unit exposure. on the analysis performed the department determined the wifrs and concessions nod not result in adverse impact on health, safety. environment or any real property list in the the california register of historical resource. waivers and consensions will not be contrary to state and federal laws. buzz the appeal issues not per nan to the planning code and are pressesil defer to others from public health and dbi and dtsc it respond to the, this were raised in the appeal. but director and myself are available to answer questions

per tinning to the planning department review and the planning code. >> thank you. no questions. commissioner trasvina. thank you for your testimony. you mentioned tht department had determined there is in add vergs impact the waivers created now adverse impact on health. is this adverse impact the a legal requirement? >> or. that is part of the criteria for determining eligibility. >> okay that is the determinations we made. for eligibility for the project the bill and 78 density housing program. between i development this does have specific adverse impact and twhon doesn't and the difference

being every where else in the neighborhood causes the health dangers of the pc e would one be allow exclude one not be allowed >> that it is in the a question for planning we are not the expert. we rely on the other expert was public health, dbi and dtsc to do an analysis and make their determinetation is our understanding they did review and determined well is no significant health impacts. >> specific. >> okay. i can talk to them later. other quest i had relates to something in the jurisdiction of the planning department. and this is the board of supervisors resolution that was authored by supervisor mar. and there the board supervisors ever urged the planning department to take all steps necessary to prevent the exposure of residents to the

vapors intrude nothing homes above the residents screening level of.46 micrograms per cubic matter. i wonder if planning vow they have met that recommendation from the board of supervisors? it is measure woad have to have measurable healing standards. so this is issue come up with shadows. as well. and this the interpretation can't be discretionary we go thea have measurable standards n. this case we believe there are right. there are the dps and dph standards in accomplice to both measure and regulate that. we are not experts on this but as we go through this approval press we rely on the experts and

the regulations and place to implement. >> i appreciate that. i'm not trying to get had a debate. president word was specific was used i wonder familiar it is possible this of high levels you can't have specifics. other neighborhoods at a higher level. this is specific. the -- requirement is met because saying it is a specific adverse impact. measurable specific we got to call it out we can apply it to other projects as well. it can'ting something this you know upon we have a hashing on and determine impact cites in prior hearing this is is not

atypical that the levels of in this amount of contamination exist on other cites what the luwants you to say is where that exists. this is when the city dtsc the per ins should do to have that clone up. not a standard for worn site that we don't apply to another site. i thank you is the jist of sb35. we apply that oshjective low like we would the coat. in cases where we have discretionary approval the commission could take off a floor of a project. it has that discretion to do it. under sb35 television does in the. we say the height limit is x.

on the question of the mar resolution has the planning department achiefed prevention of dpoesure to the neighbors of more then and there 246 micrograms. >> we rely on our partners to under take this work. i don't think the planning department should have been directed but we have the confident in our per partners to carry out that work. in the stele wants to change on when levels of contamination. or this are lower then and there when exists than i can do that. . >> westerly that's not consistent with other cites i think a violation of sb35 y. i'm asking you met the terms of the

mar resolution. >> yes, you should ask, >> yes. >> thank you. we have a quill from commissioner, okay no longer. >> okay. >> thank you. we will hear from dbi. and i understand that you are seeding 4 minutes to dph you have 3 minutes >> thank you methodue green dbi againful permit application is to erect a 7 story 90 unit building on irving striet. after review and approval by all agencies the site permit on july 12 of this year. no construction can begin before the first construction issued. dbi believed it was proper and uphold the permit. concern in appeal are technical

then and there i would address i agreed to cd the majority of my team public health who will speak after dtsc i'm available for questions on the building code most of this does in the aplay. >> thank you we the hear from dtsc. thank you you have 7 minutes. >> good evening. i'm smith with toxic substance control. our testifying team is indicated below. qualifications were at the

hearing. elements applicable to the hearing include protecting people and communities from hazardous substances and restoring land to use. i will sum rise the testimony in a high level can e will beerate under follow up questioning. site mitigation mrvens modified. monitoring data implementation and inspection results the building demolition was safe and e missions to the surrounding. site owner voluntarily recommend an investigation scope for the cleaners parcel in the larger 25 property. mr. and. on site ford annual how doing project designs to mitigation system. will be protected future residents versus pc e.

based on all information to date the. including sensitive populations upon children and elder loam and neighborhood scale vapor intrusion work and source zones continue. next. >> the capacity has police department of regulator ref lease a program or public upon health basis to deny this project building permit. recommends the board deny this appeal. status reporting follows regarding items of concern to commissioners at the february 22nd hearing. and commissioners first concern it enhance the smp. occurrence from the referring of the february 22 hearing are here. the lever march 276 enhancements low are action level for

kempicals and monitor sdpigz on site meteorology station. here and in slides provides the public hyper links to documents responsive to commissioner occurrence. this is provided for board sxrefrns document transparency and availability to the public. and this case the comment letter amended the final by reference and implemented. and the final is like this commissioners second concern demolition safe the owner conducted the monitoring. dp liar everhyper links provided for tables of fence line monitor later. and dust and also provided a table of the monitor willings for disturned soil and stock piles. monitor data complied.

next. >> slide b. airplane monitor result it is during demolition the mixture daily fence line levels was less then and there 20% of the smp action level for pc e. the daily max dust level less then and there 40%. monitoring active soil disturbance come ply and spot machine torg confirm this. combhrn interests oversight of demolition. conducted 11 inspection during demolition and staff days during the later site investigation. found no dust leaving the site. spot testing fence line monitor and active soil disturbance monitoring. and inspection and field testing confirm and found a deviation

from the smp. meteorology station. promptly available to the public and include photograph and measuring logs. >> lastly concern body need for supplemental site investigation and community input to investigation. considered verbal and written from the [inaudible]. however we had objective it is for additional types of did thea a high resolution program advised the public of june 23, 22 meeting and prop is consistent with guidance for high resolution and chiropractor iegz pc e and contammy nanlts. found the site. had been characterized for vapor. deer site for pc e a solvent

denser than water and depth with jelliology beneath the groundwater table. this sum raises investigation prior to 2023 and the second column from the left. third from the left the scope requested. the fourth the recommended investigation sdoep for miracle cloners and the right the result of june 2023 recommended investigation. and am [inaudible] scope [inaudible] 12 soil sample and was 12 vapor probes. 15 feet. approach which costs 5 times that scope included 4 probes advanced to 65 if he felt 3 prebs to the formy miracle cleaner's footprint and the backyard for dry cleaning operations sometime discharge to

ground for disposal and measurements every 0. 6 inch from thes surface to 60 plus feet resulting 5,000 measurements in site soil each with 4 chemicals. >> and the results died targets sample deep as 65 feet. a range of samples from the 4 holes 17 soil camps, learning are number and greater depth than requested and other tests that can be covered if requested under questioning. all types of results negative for pc source and in soil. will this slide sum rises >> thank you. >> >> thank you. and thank you for your very tlour over submissions and your

testimony. as before i wanted to try to their over things as much as possible. because well is just so much that happen in the this property. so far. my question is -- for us nonscientists include all of us on this panel and the general public most of the general public somewhere. presumablely. but -- you have stated and have the permit holders there is in evidence of a pc e source on the site. i not understand photocopy there is a source the permit is the left opportunity to address it because after tht building will get built and in opportunity to address a source if there is one and just not say thering is i'm just for sake of example.

might have question is if you can put it in laymachine's terms. what did the dtsc do to determine there is no source on the 2550 irving site. we used the technology rans throughout soil and 3 probes throughout former building. we bring up --ure able to see. over head. >> please. >> computer. >> here it is. >> okay. here you seat historical. where poke in the microphone >> sorry, can't hear you.

>> thank you. >> you seat historical footprint of a building destroyed before the prior bank. 2520 irving. limited historical records indicate eastern half of the building was used as a cleaner. and other records indicate a dry cleaner. we advanced 3 probes throughout former affordability of the historic structure. and one in the become yard boys in the what is a downgrade the ground water direction. each probes, the upon probe advances and opening 6 inch interviolence. heats to 248 degrees fahrenheit and pc e in any form. gas, if dissolved in liquid in

the pores of the water. free phase pc e or absorb in the the soil it gets taken in the machine andan likewised. oui are able to see -- am.6 increments over a thousand measurements for each hole down to the bottom. pc sinks it is present under the water table. so we found the msna investigation proposal. to sample 15 feet inadequate for a site we could have it persisting in under ground water 80 feet.

so far we went all the way down and each call it a. 05. half inch interval. all pc and all types of chemicals volatileized. and see whether well is a spike of the detectors that pick up a solvent. this is the innovative technique. swhp does is it will removes the practice of during a bull hole. getting a couple samples and hoping you characterize this sand on the site we got over 1200 measurements per location and surfaced to the bottom. we look and see if we have the spikes that indicate the presence of pc e. and can go become with a drill down and collect samplesa that interroll open up and look for pce. field screen for temperature kemp ral dyes. tang of the samples and target our sampling to find it where it

it is. the challenge we face with cites like this, and these are assume the worse case pc used at miracle clone and some for 10 years or more and leaked the hole time of when we have is a

massive nonwater type liquid. denser this would descend vertically in the site. . throughout sand spreading out and potential low dispolicing water and below the water table. this is a figure from a collaborative consulting organization. >> the plume e vaperate its starts it break and up you lose continue us like witted pc and it becomes more string and he individual determinelets. at the bottom figure -- we have what is residual if is just

stuck and you prebl can't see it. d it cash a source of a soil vapor. this is trying with the right size. the site -- of soil with no groundwater inform this figure you see red as the analogue of pc, it got distributed and residual. hard it see. does not move anymore but tied up in water. could be tied up on a sand

sitting over a clay layer. a secondary source. so our concern is -- that we -- make sure we found the red stuff. the broken up tien bits of pc this mipersist. at that in on unexpected just a moment trees and lenses. and perhaps under the water tibl at 80 feet. that's source that is emitting to the neighborhood. and we want to make sure that does in the exist on the site. if we bring in the system and just sweep the stuff away from the surfist i don't want to gift

community a false sense we got rid television we want a permanent solution. this is another figure this illustrates the challenges. >> upon of treating pc boy fce. and we can come become at a later question you wanted a high level summary half inch and locked in any form to capture and identify target and document these dispursed -- residuals that may be present in this 80 feet that is the source that is affecting the community and found 91. had over 5,000 measurement and 4 holes we found nothing. went become and took

>> when you say you found nothing. there was no pc at all? this is pretty clear in contradiction to other thing this is we other piece of evidence we have seenful >> understood a moment. we have over 5,000 measurement this is did not suggest the presence. informally we would have seen a couple pikes pc is there. first we did the millennium. full points that go all the way

down over 5,000 measurements and where we see spikes we target those for following investigations. so this the money we spend on conventional investigation is targeted throughout earlier screening we have a higher probability of where it is. we philidelphia and up took 17 soil samples. and i could go in why we picked the elections we looked at 5 thousand data an points and information had gave us under everknowledged the geology and signals for thez are deep as 61 feet. we found no pc in any samples down to detection. and in aggreat we had 79 soil

samples and 6 investigations. all but one have no pc. one has botch a detection. so we are finaling no primary source no source on site. to tupps appear we have soil gas. might be from another site. the appellate's consultants suggest there may be like twhad evaporate this is possible. we have to look at the worse case we don't want to gift public i false sense. we did a number of test and 6 lines of evidence. groundwater. pc dyes. we used field intruments and screened the [inaudible] this came up nothing indicate today present in the footprint miracle

cloners or behind it and nothing in the front of the form are miracle cloneers close to the street where the sewer line may have like exclude the strongest signature. repeat this. when we and look at distribution of pc in soil vapor, which is when we are primary low rest with all we are resting with at this site. [no audio] i'm hoping you seat screen with min medical audio over. this is a map this shoes the concentration contours of pc at greatest step about 15 feet across the neighborhood

integrating everything we collected date. red bull's eye in the middle on irving street is the highest concentration of soil vapor. we would have thought, i mean one leading guess is that almost i hundred years of commercialarctivity. men building constructed in the 20's. lead to discharges of pc in the sewer system and we ever working with a party to pull historical city referred and understand how that locked. this line of evidence suggest this is is a potential source and identified a dozen potential source up sewer from this site. this would make us believe this we may have pc discharge friday suers this leads to cascaded down we are not finding sign of that on the southern end of the

property. so we expected to find something of pc to follow up on. we have not seen anything on site. all we have a diffuse gas public low by evaporated likes from mir kev cleaners? more likely a partial or full contribution from unidentified off site source our fear if we put in a system and run if for 6 mont wes prove that would sweep up what is under the parcel. we are not convinced that would condition to be clone going forward over time. our fear there is pc located at depth in several locations off site and that the public would get a false sexually of confident this site was clean and we would despite sent the money now have to monitor for the potential we establishment

of pc vapor and redeploy it elsewhere in the neighborhood when we do find one ownership more source. in the hor term.neighborhood whe ownership more source. in the hor term. nor foal it would impede investigation or clean up. i'm going become to summary points redirect mow >> i have a couple of deeper points and i feel i'm asking specific questions about things i don't understand well. for give me. one -- point you stated that you did not detect pc in these misdown x number of feet.

but then you and said but there is still soil vapor pce? can you explain the difference between the 2 are and why the presumption of innocence pc in soil vapor is not detected in the mips bores? in thank you very much figure, we found no red. no concentrated pc liquid orb impacts at depth under miracle cloners or anywhere dot property we saw the gray the vapor plume

pc lected to the side where well is gray will soil vapor but not source zone. classically we use to treat source zone and you understand where the source zone is. you tree next to it to capture it and treat to draw everything in. you don't put it in a pc unknown locations potential low in const. tried form from unknown location under other buildings. diget your first question we will have a situation we have grill and the vapor we don't have source material on site. >> by saying you don't have any it means not above the level of had a source material was but does not mean there was no pc e

there? >> no we stip lay there is in soil vapor but have taken 69 soil samples at depth from a few feet down to 69 and nothing in any of them down to very, very low levels levels at which nondetect department would usually close the site. you know if there were -- yea. so we are not finding pc material this warranties sve or that any work on site. >> okay. the other thing that stuck out to me was i ran again for give me if numbers are wrong. you have dug down 60ish feet? in the bourse. >> so this investigation we took grounds water samples down to 90 feet. in case the pc had gone to ground water we wanted see it

dissolve signature flowing downgrading of the building. we had 3 samples that were nondetect for pc at levels beleave california drinking water. we are not seeing it under the water table, which can occur. we see it in 99. we have one hit it is above detection 68 in nondetects in soil. and have did not detect it with field vapor instruments or pc dyes. we are not seeing anything other than defews vapor levels. on the subject property. >> okay and regarding the groundwater. an image how ground image works. can you go down a certain

number. various based on where you are. picture you got a fish tank and fill it like 4 inches deal from the sud seat groundwater table and above the zone. ground water is 80 feet ask it flows north to northwest. >> how thick is the groundwater? are we talking about 6 inches or. >> no it will be scores of feet and there is a deeper formation that is substantial the city is using for groundwater storage for potable water supply a reason we wanted look at groundwater we will don't typeset in the stele's potable water infrastructure. >> that is helpful and makes sense. to get under the ground water scores of of 20? >> yes.

go under the groundwater you go down hundreds of feet you are not prepared to do? we are comfortable that we e eliminated groundwater as an issue at this site. we have 6 probes. over the violation upon nondetect one hit and this was below drinking pc. >> >> but -- you also mentioned the sewer is likely source -- you did not say a likely source >> a candidate source >> soda what would be the remedy for this? if it is a least presume that it is the source of the pc

contamination from something 3 blocks away. >> the technology once weep finds upon a source zone. those list deployed in the right of way on sidewalks. in the parking lanes. elsewhere in the city working around buried infrastructure in rights of way and on vacant lots and do it you know, within building this is get hard and expensive. but if we were to find an issue with sewer releases, yea we could dweel this in the right-of-way t. is challenging in terms of authority and

identifying what parties can be prune to be contributed and financial responsibility. but tech logically that can be done in the right-of-way. >> thank you. vice president lopez. thank you for your testimony. on the point about community engagement, which you know left time we were careful not to nut as a condition in the actions we took. you were very gracious to volunteer. that. you reference today in your presentation i wrndz if you can give us color as to what that looked like. was it with individuals? the appellate? or what did this take. with respect to the proposed alternate scope for

investigation. of there was conceptual discussion at the february 22 hearing we reviewed in recording. and we received written comments i believe of march in our presentation materials. >> i may ask you to discuss about other engagements with the community. please, stand by.

march 16th that would be 2023. . supervisor walsh are you on? >> i am. >> okay. du want to cover the other back and forth we had with community members that per tins to the investigation scope or is your question general about engagement of site strategy. i think it was related occurrence the public raised at the february meetings. >> okay. other exchange other than the verbasm conceptual discussion

boy representatives at the february 22nd 23 hearing and march 16, 2023 letter i was not privy to? >> am most recently we received a letter from msna and expressing disappointment in the scope in the work. your question is before the work. is tht first your question? >> both in sounds like if you got feedback after the demolition work. >> please, continue. >> i don't have i record of other. input we received between the. hearing and the most upon recent input we got. i can go to a slide with near

detail. we felt that we had a different vision of the scale of work this needed to be done and thought the community would be pleased with the amount of w we did. the scope cost 5 times what msna recommended. had significant until third degree type of prop toft community at a june 22, 22 meeting that is hyper link in the the presentation you have before you. we collected groundwater. proposal didn't. the only thing we did not doves collect soil vapor but the site had 34 soil vapor samples. standards for soil vapor and future construction for future occupancy. for undeveloped percentels post

demolition is one soil per sample every 100 lateral square feet. they are addressed by the mitigations and the sponse planful additional soil vapor did not get much in advancing our understanding of the site. finding the source of pc the risk community. weave did more work at more cost went deeper and locked at media and came with a more robust approach with the recommendations. for characterization and characterizing source for pc. we continued to come to complete accord with the representatives.

>> right. and the additional work in testing will is it correct that would be reflected and searchable. >> it available and hyper link in the your proposal. yes. >> this is public low available. >> on the public side and anybody can see it today that report went up -- kim are you able to check to see the date that was available to the public? >> i will check now >> that's august ninth. >> got it. >> thank you >> and president work plan for that the approved work plan for the work gone up months before in may or something. >> right. >> and move today brisk pace we wanted have this to present to you because of the commissioners expressed concern at the last meeting and they were gracious enough to move

this fast track valtailor. that cover its. where thank you. >> we have a question commissioner trasvina. >> am i think both commissioner lopez and lemberg this is a lot to take in. and i am beginning it be astonished by the position here. i'm really i think we may want to thoeld over for president swig. because the represent centationsure making and representations made boy dtsc were different. in my expectation from what i'm hearing tonight. could you clarify a bit. >> how many times did they meet with msna between february 22nd

and now. i locked at the transcription we agreed to. >> a number >> give me a number. zero. that's fine >> it is zero. >> thank you to accept which means to consent to receive. and we considered it. but did not agree toef have a debate we wanted get this done and report the results to you and did in the agree to adopt. we agreed to. >> you answered my question. >> and in lone work. >> she is retired. what was her role. was the division chief for northern california. we have branch chief a chafrn chief portensia. are you on the line. >> you are not answering my question you answer today. >> we have tim will get this this later.

i asked a question of the planning department mr. hill us was kind enough to punt it over to you about the more board resolution. are you familiar with this? >> i have reviewed it. >> it says the board urges the planning department that it is your job to take steps necessary on prevents exposure of residents to pc vapors introughed being in homes boor the screening level of.46 micrograms per cubic meter. have you done this? i vehicle a residence didn't of san francisco for a long time. and i recall men board resolutions that sometimes significant until interest but don't necessary low are binding

force. >> your recollection. i want to know the department done this or not. we have the planning department in my understanding, has authority with regard to new construction or major remodeling or reconstruction. is this leading up to a, no >> this is leading up it a yes we have been working on planning under cites under going entitle am reviews and they are check with us before they guarantee them. we are trying to get pers under contract so the new construction is protective with our own regulations. doctor, were you on the call? good evening >> all right. i would say that we are confidence tht new construction

of this affordable how doing will protect the future occupants to that standard no question? >> right. >> that's not my question and to the north weave concluded another round of risk assessment work and doctor, you locked at this document, can you frame how the indoor air monitor for the 6 residents to the north is prosecute seeding with respect to this microgram cubic.

you did the water. you did the half inch soil that is finalful commendable. i assume. but i want to i want to know whether the planning or dtsc accomplished what the board recommend. >> i think you are going to have to take that multipage resolution and narrow down aspects of it f. it is the [inaudible] this is one thing. >> you are taking language i think i know the answer i think

you haven't. that's fine it is a complicated question. from our perspective the future building on this site will be below because when mitigation design we approved. this site meets that resolution requirements. with respect to the north which is the first off site source we looked at the doctor can talk about whether we are at or how close we torthat standard. >> i will defer to commissioner. you answered the question. thank you. >> >> i gis will raise the issue the board the supervisors resolution. if we torch simplify it and say resolution was for you to clean up the air for the people that

live on this block. you would need to from your testimony and correct me if i'm wrong. lawyer brain here. you need find a source. >> to be able to provide adequate cleaning of the get the soil gases in the your? >> tip careful so appellateses consultants point out that it is a presumptive remedy. in sand. as we have here. disagrees it is presumptive under our process all rem doe us fullee characterize the area you treat before you choose that remedy. because rem dees fail. treating subfor you false is difficult because of the

inferences we have to make. we have to find the lull source for the neighborhood and to make sure we understand the unanticipated second army affects that might happen we would not want to make conscience worse for in in the neighborhood. by doing a rushed characteristicized throw away remedy:that's and i understand that. and i appreciate this. do you feel you have fully characterized this site? >> yes. >> and do you feel that taking the soil vapor xrakz method would assist board resolution? >> if they torch do it on this site that would remedy the pc issue on the on and around the site we are talking about here in perch taoist the long run and the reasonable time frame.

>> i would think the board of supervisors would intends to use its technical understanding to implement a rem doe for the neighborhood. in a well considered are but expeditious matter f. you did it. we don't feel that would be we foal that would create a quick temporary solution for this block and continue to monitor it for a time because we put assigned not in significant probability continues could return. >> we have not found the actual source or sources wider field than the neighborhood. >> does the approval the per nay is at issue in this pel impact your ability to further characterize the area to

identify the source and to enengage in a remedy that will be one that does not require that the degree of monitoring and heighten the opportunity for additional contamination in the future? >> i believe we have a slide that speaks to that. the answer is, if construct exclude operating affordable how doing project would not present us from continuing off site for source areas. would not prevent us from off site the assessment to evaluate scale via high risk. would not prevent from putting in system in thes future to treat sources across the street. if and i can't imagine why we dolled this if we felt we had to remove it from under the project your in the future that could be done from easily. i will point out the approved

mitigation for this building has a passive venting system that will result in gradual marginal removal of pc from under the building affordability. >> thank you. no other questions. >> i have one follow up question. you stated earlier that would require long-term monitoring but i believe you said earlier this long-term machine torg of the block the learning will happen anyway because of the source has not been identified. what additional burden would it -- would conducting sce on the irving site create if the

language term monitoring is already per of the long-term plan? for the this -- the 2500 block of irving and the surrounding areas? >> again, you don't see we don't see source material on the 2550 irving property this would typically be addressed boy sve. so normally when we design a system we put the ectraction where the red shading can where the pc liquid is. the closer you are the firefighterer the air flow the firefighterer you remove it and

all the conam tammyination. our concern would be. >> located weave are not characterized the neighborhood. we will don't know where the source areas are. rem dees sometimes fail and have unexpected consequence. from our perspective. that would -- that happened could be done in i sidewalk out of someone the board felt. in the in the footprint property itself. we will account put infrastructure in a side walk and weep vapor under the building. i don't see a need to slow an affordable how doing project to put a remedy on we would consider premature for this state of neighborhood scale

characterization. it might have a short term benefit >> so what -- comfort can you give to the neighbor who is have reported pc in their homes near by. within one block. and the upon larger mid sunset population at large who are now dealing with this and you know have are now told had this is a neighborhood wide issue. the -- the source has not been identified could be blocks away. we presented candidate cites xup down irving in june of 22, aware of the nature of the issue y. what comfort with you give them

that the neighborhood wide issue the large are issue will be addressed if not this site then what? what is the living room are plan here because we are only hearing about this site. and i understand your point to the site it make sense now. but what i don't understand the larger scale you know action plan is. it is getting learning exterior learninger which mean its is scarier and scarier for residents. >> or better defined. we see. so multipart answer. i think the first part 6 residents to the north of the property issued a report this week doctor, would you provide the commissioners with a high level over view of the findings of our report?

>> the report from the indoor air sample from the 6 residents north of irving and the property, we found sloit low elevated levels in the homes. we did document in the report that absent of any consumer products the building inventory competence kemp dam and study design to remove fault positives and under continuous the homes upon were sealed up the minimized pass of ventilation there was evidence of virintrougz in the homes. the concentrations so when i'm saying the vapor path way was befshd but based on the concentrations the risk was at or below our points of departure

for risk management under the plan except for inspect one home >> and say that. another way doctor, 5 out of the 6 homes meet set forth in the supervisor's resolution of the residential air quality standard, correct? >> that's correct. yea, it is at the point or below risk management. >> okay. first part of the answer that are pregnant this tried to give you know over view of site. we are drafted know order and are still negotiating with t pc u. we are to get the answer become from them on monday next. on prosecute an agreement to

investigate the purple parcel you see across the street to the south. results for the orange property to the south. they let us then and there than i are electric to start up investigations. >> of that i thought that was a mic. look to next month to start investigation. >> start the next phase. >> yes. >> the mid phase? no that will be just soil and -- >> the second phase of investigation will begin next month at the orange. we got another batch of did thea from the parcel in yellow. left week. >> so -- what we will do at a future community meeting our third one is gift residents u.s on when we are see nothing

homes. and we are expanding our investigation scope out. we are getting more data to see whether things are stable or changing. and -- weave cold the community this is a long game t. complicated to do this investigation in any site and the second most dense low populated city in the united states with multiple pers and frameworks. some of them with financial limitations it will take awhile. but p doctor, has significant until and theed team signals that these homes are safe to occupy. in the near term as we continue to work through the investigation process. and -- development data to -- implement remedies and solutions and characterize the site under

our process. >> thank you. >> you can be seated we will hear from dph. welcome. you have 4 minutes. >> >> thank you. good evening. i'm ryan casey i work in the san francisco department of public health as the site assessment and mitigation program caseworker for the development at 2550 irving. i work for 7 years in environmental remediation a licensed professional civil engineer. authority is from san francisco health code recall it is 22a and b. the ordinance under 22a requires dph oversight for mitigation of hazzard substance in soil, vapor and groundwater for projects within specific areas of the

city and county of san francisco. in february 2022, our program issued a plan approval letter certifying revowed all documents and the applicant met the ordinance. and 2 may prosecute seed with the development. in november of 2022, our program reviewd and, proved the health station on the permit in question. following completion of develop will the applicant is required submit a final report if he were review and approval. to ensure the site plan was implemented properly. our program through revouch documents today and approval health station on the site permit determine that theed applicant has met all requirements to protect health and safety the vapor mitigation measures under the authority provide by the agreement are protective of future occupants.

we are confident of that through property impwill elementation of the site management plan, habitual health and the requirement protected during the development press. in this instance the plan or the smp is the document to ensure compliance to the oversight throughout response plan. the case dph in communication and cordination. all data continuing to indicate one conformance with the program requirement and 2, continued protection ofom site workers and the community. base odz our past experiences and through our review we are confidence in everto proper low over see the environmental investigation and mitigation at this site and other clone up cases at intersection of 26th

and irving. in conconclusion, there is a press in place in dph through the program to revving lit the environmental compliance with the site the press is followed and we are confidence that public health and the environment are protected the case at 2550 irving is in the unique with respect to our process we don't have concerns with the development at the site the document it is are not unusual and similar to other development projects occurring throughout the city with similar environmental occurrence. i'm available to answer your questions my program manager is here, too. >> okay. >> thank you. vice president lopez. >> thank you for am being here for your testimony. related question this the fip asked you the state agency. if twrom community engagement.

are y'all receiving calls of concern? or communication ownership notices -- in a public way related the project at snaul >> yea. i'm always available to take calless from the public. and in the and smp there is a dust control plan including signage that we use on this site and other sites to ensure if there are complaints the public can call 311 and routeed my program. and then most case the same day we go and see what is going on if there is an odor. dust or are dirt tracked out. for this site since february i have not received calls from the public. before february we were inspect some calls with msna and we are

trying to connect female get their concerns heard. >> thank you. >> no more questions. we are move to public comment can i have a show who is here in the room for public comment. great. if you could lineup against the wall and when you are done give the card to mr. long way. and i see this we have 75 people in our zoom queue. vice president lopez du want to limit public comment. i will regrettablely given we are past 9 o'clock and the volumeville to limit to a minute this evening. >> okay. we will do one minute. >> thank you >> and sir, if the speakers can come forward and go up to the podium when this person is done we can keep it flowing you with wait there and fill out your card and walk up >> welcome.

i'm raffle i lived a few blocks from the site for 60 scombroers have 3 bits of good nuchlt affordable housing built. 2 the toksecks are cleaned up the third is the guest beft you dent have to choose. you heard it over and over tonight. >> if the construction guess forward and complete today does in the foreclose continued testing. it does the in foreclose clone up. and there. sbe is an issue. >> for that reason denight sxael feel confident you are not turning your becomeos cleaning up toxics from the community. gift peeshg card. >> next speaker, please. the person in the sweat shirt. thank you >> good evening commissioner i'm mike commentville tear from housing and asking you to deny

the appeal. you there is more this hen done. we appreciate given fast exert easy for 100 plus families to live in the sunset. why thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello i'm bob i'm a volunteer with san francisco i'm urging to you deny the aappeal. prosecute what i will add the following there are people every notice in the city that are sloping on streets and sloping in run down housing this we need to continue to reper se xup grid and that were -- you know note able to make it. >> thank you

>> we have a shortage of affordable housing and need to get roadblocks out of the way. and they have done due diligence and made it clear that there is no and public healing or environmental to deny orup hold. denight appeal. >> thank you. >> good evening i'm gene the san francisco organizing director for nb action and he were to ask to you deny the appeal you heard compelling testimony of the i learned about soil vapors tonight and they were prepared i think they showed that the answered questions. we need this affordable house thanksgiving is a part of the city we have not will built in comb in for a language time x. to comment on another piece. nature the appeal is so much that our represents on the east side of the city is passing a

luto prevent these abuse. we have a press in follows. thank you. >> thank you. >> vice president lopez. commissioners. i came to the meeting coming from a different place learned a lot in the meeting the part i find confouzing if the site was so to beingic you took city employees and made them move now you are plan to build housing for people could get sick from it and am off site in the street where this guy is standing if this is where the toxins are your you not dig dun how to remodeiate that. so.

next speaker, please. local 22 is here in support development at 2550 irving opposed to the appeal the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation has a history of w with nor cal carpenter union and made the committed to use [inaudible]. thank you. >> 30 more seconds.

>> there is evident of dangerous pc contamination affecting irving street. yet supposed to protect the public is w with the developtory prevent i clone up at the site. first they signed the agreement with the developer before the full delineation of the contamination of the block 2500 irving. at this time, 2-1/2 years after of the public learned about it contammy nigz they have tested 6 homes why only 6 there are so many others that should be tested. second min tin they cannot find it at 2550 irving street. there it is 91 at the site. refuses to test the election in the same way they test cross the

street. policed the court. >> your time is up. next speaker, please. i live at on stwifth avenue. 47 years. when it was the -- it was announce third degree 6 homes north on irving street were investigated there was i sixth home this had toxicity. also the upper when the police credit union inhabited the upper floor and the main floor were evacuated. because that was in the mentioned.

i'm angry they did not honor our asks in february we did not ask

for the 100,000 soil vapor testing. for this sxiet a pilot this being be duplicated cross the street to rem dealt brown field. i spent this morning updating the cancer cluster map. it is depressing i don't to see more names added. ir want affordable housing not at the cost of my neighbor's lives wrochl thank you. i'm thom help upper a licensed architect and planner and a consummitant and add sunrisor the past 2 district 4 supervisors.

so, gone to great length in their testimony and i listened it this weekend again from february. this is the testimony this sbe can. -- can economically be -- configured. so there is a solution and this is the comprehensive solution that the neighbors experts have recommended and i recommend this you deny this building permit. thank you. i don't will move to zoom. the personal low if dt sd and organizations are confidence this there is no problem there and no ppe. for this project or thousands of

other projects throughout the city. should be a clause set in accomplice on this. state thanksgiving than i will take care of people if deemed later on they have cancer or other grave diseases that kill the people. and family and or provide for families for their lives they don't dot right thing. please, dot right thing and row against the develop exerts for msna. thank you. the caller number 1502. press star 6 to unmute yourself. the caller ending in within 165. go ahead. press star 6 to unmute yourself.

good evening. commissioners. jake price housing okay coalition i commends the acting president swig in february predicted we would be here after another identical appeal when changed since. for one even more testing done at the site since demolition demonstrating it is not the source of pc. as detail in the the brief the same thing done and exceeded the rigor requested they voent low failed to mention. the site is big we know tht experts say it time and time again. will why is it affordable housing project responsibility it remodeiate a neighborhood when their site is not the source? why can't san francisco build it. look no further not that abuse

of process before you stay. it is in the a reason to fear. thank you. we will hear from the call are ending in 1502. 5926. i'm in support of the appeal the permit holdser stated a clean up would be cost prohibitive. and there are state and federal clean up grants the permit holder refuses to apply for. the city will own the land with the permit holder entering in i language term ground floor lease. the steal own the land and it

seems conduct a clean. thank you. sam. go ahead. sam hov. >> >> i'm tyler i live newscast richmond and calling to urge the board to deny this appeal. i listened to everything tonight and sounds like the necessary agencies have done their due diligence. and in favor of building more housing on the west side and limiting the hurdles.

we will come back. elizabeth. >> good evening. elizabeth. our team is supportive of the affordable development. 2550 irving and urge actual grant the permit for the needed housing. ace an affordable housing developer we believe this they have gone above and beyond with protecting the health of the residents and future residents. this will provide development with the mitigation measures. we urge to you deny the appeal.

phone number end nothing 1185. press star 6. where i'm kenneth russell a renter in district 7 speak nothing support of the affordable homes on irving street. the left side needs to house more people in july of 21 i spoke in support of this project over 2 years ago. the project has a soil mitigation plan. i want to thank everyone for their heard w. know front has an obligation to approve this that includes the building permit. please deny one more appeal and let the housing move forward >> jessica pearl? >> i'm jessica i'm a real estate

agent in the city and reject the appeal and allow homes to be built for future san franciscans. we need more on the west side thank you. i'm a san francisco rent exert encourage you all to deny this and support the project. now san francisco there are 10 thousand people sleeping outside and in substandard house thering is in the enough affordable. d4 has not built any in a decade and san francisco needs 40,000 units in the next 9 years the reason you are considering this. do not want affordable housing near them the electric lack of

construction we heard not tonight and previously that they said there is no public health base toys deny this permit. don't accept the appeal let it go forward we need more housing. especially on our west side. thank you very much. manson lung. go ahead. hi. i'm behalf of [inaudible]. i would like to urge the commissioner to approve the project and deny the appeal. seniors in low income on the waiting list for affordable housing. and this project gift opportunity to

>> armonday. go ahead. armonday. >> hello >> hello >> hi. i'm residents of pacific heights. . i want to say i'm a member of the [inaudible] and i was coashgsz everaligz and urge to you reject the appeal i fund my own appeal against a neighborhood association for forcing to [inaudible] third. yea. the [inaudible]. presented a benefitted scientific evidence saying belling this will not have a harm. neighbors are holds thanksgiving building hostage. we need to reject this attitude

and build the housing for people struggling in the city. >> the number end nothing 7229? go ahead. i'm a language time sunset resident lived for 8 year around the corner from this project and grew up there i was healthy and in 40's now. i think it is time to get the project built. we mode it for people who need so much affordable how doing that's when we need this is a perfect project. group that oshg was o before they found substance in thes ground from day one. so i think it is time to approve this project. i hope you agree. thank you. >> thank you.

>> phone number 6359. press star 6 it unmute yourself. >> hi. i'm andrew. i live on 25th and irving. near the site for the affordable how doing and urge the commission to reject this appeal. we spend time [inaudible] toxicology and public healing experts. i think we should trust their professional opinion and had should contract broader picture. public will health and good. elder low were mentioned and vulnerable to the to beingins. it does in the exist as described by the experts. those were the most impacted with the housing crisis we

mentioned before other district. i urge to you contract fact and deny. sin smith. go ahead. >> i'm fin smith a residents of the west side here since 2014. i urge to you deny the pel and, prove the housing i'm a parent and i am pessimistic about the future of my son live nothing san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. dan. go ahead. unmute yourself. dan. sorry. >> good evening, commissioners. yea. i'm danful i'm a residents in d5. we need housing affordable housing on the west side of the

city we have friends who love the city to do you to the electric of affordable housing. over sf planning said irving was eligible for ministerial approval 3 years ago. hcd is watching we must follow state law deny this appeal. appreciate your time yoochlt nita. go ahead. i'm doctor nay upon emergency medicine and the medical director of [inaudible]. i'm a parent of 3 mall children and a father with dementia and live cross the street. you don't need a to beingicologist to tell you pc is toxic. there is no health risk is wrong. upon it causes cancer like blood cancer and a slew of other

issues. well is a concern for cancer. it is using confusion language saying none was found and mule report this week 91. us had access to we don't upon are than i higher levels or not. oom alex wong i live i now blks of way. i urge to you deny the appeal. this project has qualified for approval under sb35. guarantee thanksgiving would will violate state laws.

90 working families can't send upon their kids to our great schools and can't go to our businesses the sunset is in need of affordable housing. >> please deny the appeal. thank you >> shannon dodge, go ahead. >> good evening amming i'm san francisco residents and i'm joining you tonight >> the sponsor and dt sd gone over risks and the results different positions at the mitigation measures are this is not a source of contamination i believe the approval the site

permit and the building of the critical needed affordable housing proceed right away. please grant this project. adam michaels. can you hear me >> this is adam michaels. and 6 months clean the to beingins will not stop project it might save lives. they would in the start construction enemy 2024.

anyway the left call are tucked about mitigation members there are none for mow and my family we live a house away and told my home has pc 4 times the screening level. this is an actionable level of toxins. they told me this yesterday. buff shaw tuesday is up to upper management to make the decision. i would urge you why du get with myth time to drone and try to lose you instead of giving our experts more time. than i don't want to dot one test i don't want thank you. richard chewy.

am close to president project mother in law passed in august of 21. diagnosed with lung cancer. she was home bound stayed home. possibility of her death due to pc cannot be ruled out. our house measured boost threshold. the level. should dot right thing. and sdrm in the have inupon centive to do it voluntarily. should not bypass concerned do the right thing to guarantee this appeal. human lives matter. >> thank you. >> nancy lee, go ahead.

>> can you hear me >> yes. >> thank you for the time. i don't understand we have last face-to-face meeting president swig said be a good neighbor. reach out. reach out to neighbors. and tonight i don't think they have. even though they have the tests why in the? sends an e mail i meet you at the corny. i took this test they did testing and you know -- there is a big concernful number one, two, won't don't want to delay the construction so why don't you have ns, want one test give it to them and build. let's credit i win for the niches. thank you. >> thank you. phone number, 0185. go ahead.

i'm jean a formy biomedical research scientist. i am an attorney litigated vipiral health issue deny this perimism soil sampling was inadequate the plan did not include soil vapor extraction. did not consult with msna on the work plan the stele's principle and environmental code instructs to minimize the harm to a project must be applied. there is 2 many unanswered questions your decision billsod data, science and the statutes and ordinance. low income attentives living there and residents in, joining homes face health risks if you approve this tonight. do no harm and grant this

appeal. thank you y. audrey lou. go ahead. i'm audrey a residents of west side you heard, lot of comments on how it is toxic and i agree but clear from the d. toxicity is this this site is not the source of the toxins and focus on the site is going to delay housing for the building of fordable housing. and also public health an over focus on symptom and not the problems. with this said, deny the appeal and build the housing. tiffany?

good evening commissioner i'mtive no. living close to 2550 irving. dtsc did more it enfers the clone up by [inaudible] there are aleft elder low people and children living near by. this is in the only the issues but health issues. should be treed serious low to protest our children and fells and immediate neighbor. we heard that and our families have dharns dpiegs around the side. please, help us. clone up the absolutely needed to give neighbor and future residents. help us dot right thing. thank you. >> thank you.

why sunset mom. go ahead. sunset mom. >> yes, >> okay. my family of 6 live close to the site and the left hearing the team said ignored the request to work the plan for irving and you heard than i are not dealt with the niches. [inaudible] this is the reason yet neighborhood does have trust or trust on remediation of the issue. if the clone up does not condition will to the permit the community probably will not have other way to force the developer in the city to dot clone up here. the clean up without delays to the construction. they say they will not do

[inaudible] how long is this going to take. we wait in our homes with contamination hoping we don't get cancer. >> the number in 5958. go ahead. >> hi. upon i'm camera reid a home torn in san francisco i'm calling to urge the board of appeal its deny this appeal. on the permits for the projects. it is important for our city to build more housing and made clear by state again and again and when i see is that house being projectseen fordable housing which are needed to keep people off the streets are denied. and for really serious reasons.

the west side nooez needs affordable housing. . every city needs to do its part and this project has been fully vetted boy the city and should be supported and the appeal must be denied. thank you for being here. we have read the reports and trust this this site is not source of pc e.

we have a 14 mont old and supportive of projects. this will make san francisco an affordable city in the future. i urge to you deny the appeal and grant the permit. hirsch am. >> can you hear me. >> yes. >> thank you everyone. thank you for the board member its is late i appreciate you for stay thanksgiving late and i urge actual deny the appeal. it does in the electric like this lot is the source of the pc e there is no reason stopping you from denying it thank you. christie tammy. >> can i come 2 blocks away and the i attends every hearing.

including the community meetings. from what i hear tonight that and the than i as well begin up providing different information. come per seeing to the previous hearing. i'm hearing. of information there so and also the house around have been tested for the high pc e. the result proved clone up is necessary. i please i urge you to grant appeal for tonight to protect health of the current and future neighbors. help us. thank you y. joel cone. con. >> yes. thank you. i'm joel cone i'm calling to

encourage the commission to deny the appeal. [inaudible]. the project indicates it is safe and this occurrence over pc e are unfounded. trust the experts more than [inaudible]. so approve. thank you. >> the number in 1017. go ahead. you may need to press star 6. go ahead. >> hi. i'm laura foot the executive director and live in san francisco for over 10 years and i'm starting a family here and the need for affordable how does suggest so grit in san francisco and then and there we see it every day.

everybody is on the commission i note that what i worry we don't focus on when we demonstrate we can't be object sdpif don't listen to the experts or the lu. when we drive up in building fordable housing delay project and make people wait on the list long exterior languager when we demonstrate we can't be trusted we lose local control. city at risk of losing ability to make decision fist we make poor decisions and give in not nonsense and fear amongering this is happening tonight we continue to do all kinds of soil remediation. >> thank you. ralpha, go ahead. good evening will i'm calling on behalf of [inaudible]. you heard from experts from the

city and the state. that the project will be safe for the residence dentses and for the community. . you have an obligation under the luto deny this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. why lee, go ahead. >> hold on for a moment. >> everyone in the city says we are confidence. as a residents had lives near by we are not confidence. we your some experts saying one thing and others saying something snels we don't know because they refuse to work with msna. has been identify thered is a

path way for vapor introugz from my stour hour drien my home they said, we found a hot pot well is an opportunity to remove to beingins before the building is built. tell be more cost low after construction. we are not aposing the housing. we will come in. don't let others tell you we are trying to block it. >> okay. thank you. caller identified yo. go ahead. >> hi. thank you for the time. i urge you to reject the appeal. i'm a residents of the sunset and common sense and frank low it is a distraction from building housing. we need to trust the experts this all approve this and say what contamination does not pose

a risk to development and for those who are concerned about tokseck contamination no reason why it can't be remediated. thank you. i yoeld my time yoochl anatasia. . go ahead. >> yes. good evening. this is anatasia. a member of san francisco tenant's union. i'm delighted to be director hill us here tonight and i support denying the appeal and urge the upon whole commission here to deny the appeal and allow the affordable how does to move forward this is a housing project for people. thank you. >> we will try the caller who's number ending 1502. press star 6 to unmute the

second time. i'm frank this is an attempt top delay affordable housing 2 years ago planning confirmed the and site for approval process under sb35 this could have been presented earlier and opponents chose not to delay project. and the general arguments have been vetted boy planning. and careful low studied and rejected. this is not the source of potential impacts. sf stopping the project will in the stop occurrence. complel state and environmental agencies believe the mitigation members will protect the health

of residents let's to the of the have a new special subjective standard for this site different from the city and the state. >> thank you. >> thank you. charef. this is our second request to you. unmute yourself. charty natolly. >> thank you. i'm charlie a residents of d6 my first time giving comment a pol skwlees encourage the commission to rejekts the appeal. city is in need of affordable housing. think about the project could add 100 housing for people. upon i think listen to the experts and deny the appeal >> thank you. any further comment on zoom? raise your hand.

one moment. pisee whoondz but not person. donna donna, unmute yourself. you raised your hand and you need to unmute yourself. go ahead. donna. [inaudible]. muted. i hear you. >> i live about a mile from the site. kim familiar with it. i'm a member of the housing okay coalition. . i urge to you reject the appeal.

i was very satisfied with the expert ease and the scientific analysis i heard tonight. >> they have sthaen there is actual levelinglier no risk health risks at that location. . we all have to live like it or not with mineute amounts of toxins in our environment. the important thing is than i are negligentable they have majored and found them almost amounts. >> thank you. thank you, everyone for following the rowels >> somebody else. >> we do. thank you. >> okay. >> tag. go ahead and if you are hear raise your hundred now.

okay. >> thank you. >> am we hear you. thank you. i want it call in and support the project. deny the appeal housing is needed. >> just do it, thank you, bye. >> thank you. deb are murphy. go ahead. i live cross the street from the project i'm a low income senior and affordable how doing i and clean up the pc avenue. i lived here for for you scombroers exposed this my house was not the tested i don't know hubody it is why can't we clean it xup then builted housing. it makes sense cross street a

cortez site. >> regardless. clone it up and build it up. thank you. i don't see any hands raised thank you, everyone for participating and adhering to the rowel this is concludes public comment and move on to rebuttal. hear from the appellate first. and >> you have 3 minutes. thank you. >> vice president lopez. i want president swig to hear this. 4 year since pc was discovered at the site and the ground floor second floor was closed off. and at this rate they will not characterize the brown field this is a red herring the source is a red herring you 1700 micrograms is high enough.

too high that grounds for remodeiation. 4 times the risk level found in the home system high enough to remediate you don't need a source if this was albright no question. remediation is all for. >> heavy lift. >> the ignert resolution and one of the min thing this is have not been emphasize its works and will not delay the project. >> they p mitigation is in the going to protect the neighbors.

it is mitigation is not remediation. will explain yet doctor was wrong about the findings of the indoor air testing. >> i read the report it was supplied to the residence didn't says. vapor intrusion can only e eliminate 2. by ignorring the testing done in september of 21. homes appear to have i backgrounds source the levels are boost screening level. they ignorred the guidance and done time averaging. instead of the max exposure. if you do this you upon season morover time to do this. i could i wish had the time to rebut mr. smith. mitigation only prevents the

virs from coming in not e lim nit them. >> 1 thbld micrograms that was the level at albright. 1700 this is when is on this property. can be done without delay. we have a question from commissioner lemberg >> thank you. i wanted hear the version of things before i asked you questions. the science behind this is complicated and wanted an understanding what was going on from their perspective and what happened. so --the one thing i'm stuck on here is this property i'm i will

save most comments. i believe there is large are issue unaddressed. when i'm not clear is what needs to happen. the cites under construction that is -- necessary in order to address the learninger neighborhood issue. which there is. i believe this it is beyond doubt there a learning are neighborhood issue. and i -- you know but i want to know what this specific parcel has to do with it. >> it would issue grit if they moved fast or the others the pilot test to determine the ridius of influence in sand so you don't pull things from

across the street but contamination from the existing homes that would be immediately. based on how long it takes to process it is paper work. and it would not take throng install soil vapor esq. traction. it is easier when you got their dirt and an angle from the sidewalk block the public right-of-way. that is when would be done we have been asking for them took them a year to come out with the albright support if they were series they would have issued a pc u a year ago and would have -- have better results and detailed from albright and homes ajaycent. to do it at once they didn't. we are forced ask to you be want stop gap. they have the clairea agreement saying they don't to do anything or listen to the community. you are our back to receive

community is protected they docked it and men they want could not operate the and extraction system for 6 months get everything out but turn it on after construction. happen your response to the testing done. hold of many ways they did more than what was asked at the previous hearing i want toax knowledge that. but what apart from what you said did theed proposed soil vapor extraction. when else is. is your response to -- the testing that was done.

why comment on the mem combran special interface probe. >> thank you. jot membrane preb system used commendable and all of our tool box will it is effective tool. we should understand it is screening provides qualitative data and in the document in the guidance for the use of the tool, they say it is in the a substoot federal sampling by other mechanisms such as soil vapor. than i did. and grown 've grounds water. correct. when i think we're disappointed in the investigation is albright it was conduct exclude this we have. . in the form affordability and cloners.

what was the name. >> thank you. am i'm fatiguing. there are no soil samples. . can i ask, sure. so, we asked at 2 depth when you do this on the parking lot cross street if you have a higher level and the shallow gals from deep that will indicate that was a location where there was i release in the past. with that upon slide we asked for that. and asked for 6 soil samples they gave us one. another thing we locked at their work flan conclude there was no will source on site before they have conducted the work. not the way you do science you have a hypeoth premesis and sampling to test they gave us the conclusion and repeated the

language in their final report.

they have not found another source and saying this is not the source if it came down the sewer 39 is like the blaming the congestive heart failures for the pile of bones outside. the coincidence that niching from 10 blocks away happened in out in front. they have not found the source and saying this is not the source. >> okay.

>> okay. sounds like we have a disagreement about the method and dying noveltyics and can't agree on -- it the core of their fining from the tests. you can't agree that this is not a source of the pc e. so this in my minds is a question about methods and diagnostics if that is correct, it seems like there is expertise within your group. is this -- is in the avenue you are take to sdmfrj >> excuse people let me finish.

to engage with the methods or is there outside of and this appeal process do you have condition tact with lawmakers or representatives to say -- your manageds are not working. . >> we met with management yesterday did b this i requested a meeting and delay today until after the brief. of course if they will not change -- based on what we say because we filed. i have been going to dt sd meet and comments on guidance for 20 ears. they are not following their own guidance. we robbery giving input and often times we dot right thing i wod a lot of project and dan and

don. and this case we think they are doing the wrong thing. >> thank you. >> thank you. you can be seated >> we will hear from the permit holder. >> thank you. you heard from and prosecute pt vapor intrusion mitigation approved will render it safe. it seems the appellates don't disnewt and agree with that. the complaint relates to contamination in their homes. and so they want thome clean update neighborhood problem even though the site is not the source according to the experts in the state agency charged with making that determination. and it is in the the cause of the problem. i want to suggest holding up the

site permit for this project it use it as leverage to dress a neighborhood scale problem is wrong and unfair x. unlawful the project did not cause the problem and counter productive to the goals of the city to delay construction of fordable housing project under these circumstances the city need this is projected i thus around of these projects. tonight typeset need this is project. weave urge to you facility luand relion the luto give light to senator wiener's vision of sb35 and build affordable housing. thank you. >> the planning department. okay. just a second. >> thank you is there a member

of the permit holder of this organization here? yes. >> i can ask the group. it instructor:s me we had deliberation and voiced requests of both state agency. d. public health about community engagement i think that those requests were everwere misdirected? you know we are asking the scientists and healing professionals to engage in community pounding the pave am engagement. seems that is probably more squarely went interests and expert ease of the permit holdtory alay the fierce and the

prior 2 hearings related to the property. tonight's hearing. tell us about community engagement. seems to me, you have in hand studies and reports this seem to the support your position and there men subject to be shared via you know -- website whoness where you finds this or someone calls the dtsc or dph. and z.s you would be incent sunriseed shout from the mountain tops if you feel good about the reports. this is in the a reason for to you be afraid. sxf -- stand on the corn weir a sandwich board to prefd that. what can you tell us were what

familiar anything has been done to that end? >> thank you. vice president lopez. i think has been involved with the community including the appellate since the gipping. we start out roach in early 2021. at this point. since then, met with the other members of community several times. we have i project website. this is all the reports they published. we have made public all of the neighborhood meet pregnants. recordings, translated in languages for folks to look at. i think that they had their own community out reach meetings left year. and may be in 2021. i don't have the dates. the did effort to educate the community about the nature of

the pc e vapors and contamination. we have e nail mill address we monitor on going community occurrence. broad are than contamination. we have been doing that in several at this point several months. i believe we are done effort in terms of our community engage woman this project. and also talking with the. nsna. i will say our communication has been more sporadic and less since the left year. just because i think we have an active litgation going of i think that is naturally reduced by communication with them. but over all we have been available and held office hours for 12 mont for thes project

every week. the member his were welcome to come and ask questions. there has been alost of effort on our end. iel. why a bit more color there exit appreciate if you are in a litigation the terms might not be as friends low. seems to me that you know you do have folks newscast neighborhoods. who may or may not be affiliated with the appellate. you mentioned the substance of your out reach effort system brard p. in terms of you on the ground we see this project had this come buffers every and few months.

you being on the ground, upon twhan landscape. you know pc e a big part of this? or in a point out roach? when we started the project in 2020 and started work in 2021. the upon main and issue was the height and scale of the building perform following our approval with us sb35 i think and planning permits that toned down because the permits sb35 approve exclude they were moving in order they continued to want to see a mauler less tall building. since then, i think community engagement and concerns through

this has been about pc e's and contamination. we are not environmental consultants or experts we hire experts and learned they were doings a robusted project. we went to every meet manage as an audience member they were the lead of the community out we will for that. where thank you. >> for the minutes are are sharea shaw. >> okay. we will hear from the planning department. happy to differ or time those are issues. i think can yours and fitsed with challenging questions. we can get -- machine said in public comment we want affordable housing. and clean soil.

seems like we can get both. thank you. we will hear in dbi. good evening. methodue green. sympathet i think to the occurrence dbi this project was approved properly. i have confidence in the mission to protect the communities. testing protocols and findings presented tonight. after tonight i believe the projects approved will not hurt healing occurrence nor inhibit the investigations boy dtsc i encourage the board to deny the

appeal. i'm available for questions. why thank you. >> no questions. now from dtsc and planning ceded 2 minutes you have time left. >> okay. . >> we will hear from dtsc, 5 minutes. >> my computer battery has 4. >> y are okay with this. soil vapor there is soil vipir site? they found no pc on this site billsod lines of evidence and six phases of investigation. pc was lected but e vice president ritd and on site as soil vipir. recognize this is is possible. but it is also possible and find its probable that pc u in site

soil vapor yet to be identified off site source zones one evidence is the most concentrated prosecute benched in the sfreechlt from concentration contours of deer horizon most informative of source zones. showed that figure this evening. apart from this evidence there is historical information to consider. 10 historical dry clone exerts identified other ngz efficiency operations that may have used pc k. typical press for those businesses. from it. am precushionary principle assume multiple off site source zones rather than the opt mifkt

or possible hypeoth premesis it was released on sxooit evaporated. exclusive proceeding one or more off site source zones they don't recommend near term 2550 of we agree and and around the site on about a sick mont time scale. they are concerned that concentrations will reestablish and will require on going monitor to confirm effectiveness or likely long-term ineffectiveness this for several reasons. we have not found the course zones the root cause. two, we have not characterized the neighborhoods. required under process prior to design risk assessment for impacted scombrars a document to

select and design rem dees. remedies can fail from under characterization. third, were rem dpee failure concentrations of vapor from unidentified source zone under buildings emergency nal in subsept ability. remediation without full characterization can make it worse. 4, would not be indicated if pc were below the surfist in an identified location. other performance risks not fully evaluated. and aggregate recommends forking rem doe deferred until sources are identified and the neighborhood is characterized. homes tests for safe to be occupied. the scale proceeds.

2, the passive of the affordable housing predicts result in removal from under the site and 3 future were can be inif stalled treat off site source zones. no environment at base you to denight building perimism recommends the board deny this appeal. >> okay. thank you. >> xhrps this matter is submitted. before jumping into the

deliberations i love to turn over to because sb35 raised in briefing and by peeshgs can you give us guidelines in terms of what is sb35 and how it applies to the case. >> thank you. . this board and the public heard about sb35 i spoke did b it the hearings in february. and the appellate the sponsor and attorney mention today. before the deliberations i want to give i reminder about the standard that , plies today. sb35 is a state density bonus law. requires the city to upon approve affordable residential housing project this is meet objectives and identify

criteria. because it requires the city to upon approve qualifying projects this spell not subject to the standard of review under section 26 of the code. the city's review in this burden's review is limited it determining whether it meets criteria spes foil in the sb35. sb and those f they are not at issue in this appeal. there are in questions whether this project meets design standards. s b 35 has rowels about permits required to complete a project the demolition permit you considered in february and the building permit before you today. for those, sb35 says 3 things.

first the stele must issue it if the application come ploys with the development as approved. second, the city cannot impose procedure or requirement that is novelty imposed on other project this is are not subject. this is a discussion we had at the february meeting and third, the city's review of application cannot inhibit or preclude the development. if the board considers a motion to either grant the faechlt and add condition on the project. the board need to make findings based on the record before you that satisfy the sb35. hope them is helpful. happy to answer questions. >> thank you. and if start with are

commissioner trasvina. thank you. vice president lopez and thank you deputy city attorney for the discussion on sb35 when we were here on the dem ligdz the public was told don't worry did it demolition is one. you have another shot at this the building per mist stage. i'm glad you described the program terse of sb35 if we have no discretion we could have end third degree meeting a limited partnering time ago we do have in discretion. i am treepd grant the appeal based on over relines and misplaced reference to tdsc. i will and perhaps we may need to continue this merit to have president swig here. we may need to ask you have to

certain legal matters that will require research. to make sure we are comply with all laws including the charter. but i find in this case that they have not well served the residents of the sunset. the future and residents of the 2550 irving the carpenters and everybody who is cull in the in good filth it come here to peek about the need for affordable how many daysings. i over the years fought for affordable housing. . and i seen resistance. i stein for many reasons. this is not the knee jerk resistance i seen in other place the people who come talk about their -- is here with the cancer

cluster chart. and -- i think that -- what strikes meet most the over reliance on dtsc they could have done when the msn, requested. could have been done in 6 mont and done by now. and moving forward on this affordable how doing had we taken the approach and taken the msma at their worried to say we want the soil vapor done. instead, they spent more and took more time and came up with something unsatisfy. i asked about if this earlier. and she said i can say well is a high priority for you to satisfy the occurrence of the community. they are upon cashed about their health this . is a prior for us. . am when keep hear are and tonight they when asked, du mote

with msna? i don't than i were may be yesterday. there is no involve am of them if from since -- the community the developers could have done that. as well. . and againful won't could have got then done. i upon note instead record mr. bruno declaration. he said the dtsc representatives stated that they did not believe in conducting more investigations would satisfy the community members regard rolls of findings that sounds consistent upon with when we heard tonight of the they did in the go to the length its community with the community. will i believe that there has been over reliance on this and instead of doing the soil vapor testing they could have resolved

many. they did not go this route. we heard, too much mr. bruno's declareification, too that , the 2550 irving property has 1700 micrograms of them. we hear there is none there, its in the the source. if we believe in affordable housing and believe in public health of the people san francisco and future people. we have to do in right exit would move to grant the appeal on and scholarship the. -- what we ghet various form and when else should be done. but i would grant the appeal. >> thank you. commissioner. you -- stated a lot of what i think i i'm more on the fence

than a lot in the room might think i am. based on my what i said in the february hearing here. and am as i said a couple of timeless i do you know -- question the importance of this parcel the development is on in the over all problem. this being said, there are several things that smells here for me. where i do start? the thinga speaks note me is the

dtsc when given a list of asks sxh from february 6 minutes ago. . seem it upon snnd a way that was intindzed to make everyone involved think this they had done more than asked but as we heard i think in several ways did not do what was asked of them by fwroup and the neighbors. and you know the prosecute logic behind conduct 5x the cost testing was asked for. and. yet tom evercomplete low side stepping everybodying we asked of them in fanatic it smells to me. i my intuition is going off.

i'm not an environment expert or attorney not my area but what is clear is there is an issue with pce contamination it this neighborhood and that novelty it near leave enough has been done up to date. to and address that and upon the and process is going slowly when it is also equal low apparent that they have both power financial resources and responsibility. to -- clean thumb entire neighborhood pimp think that there is so much at stake and i you felt want to be clear as in february i want it husbanding development to move ahead exit heard this from every niche here

as well tonight. i can't 39 the public combhenlt cancer clutters and note makes me think. and i can't in the hear that. i can't not think about this and that is the sort of thing that and influences us. it not about the affordable housing. everybody we heard this from commenters tonight you are trying to stop affordable housing. that's not it. none of us want stop affordable how doing. will what is at stake the health of the entire central sunset neighborhoods. that is more important than this affordable housing project. and and i'm not willing to

bypass that. when we have a neighboring association.

there is a big are picture here with the legal become ground and what goings on with agencies who are align in the ways that don't make sense to me. i support the motion tonight we may depending on when vice president lopez and commissioner eppler a we mineed to continue this hearing. to a time when president swig is here we require 4 votes to grant

an appeal. i will now pass it to commissioner eppler. >> thank you. commissioner. and i want to thank you for bring up issue of the legislation would curb or ability to hear matters such as this. it is 10. . 42 and have been here for awhile i feel this was an person exercise and important this we did this for perhaps in 2 times once might have been enough we have recognize thered is i problem. well is a big problem and publicicize third degree problem this is there is pec contamination in this site this needs to be remediated. it needs to be remediated. however, i see a difference between that remediation and the

permit we are here to pass judgment upon. i feel this one. i will say we have no new facts. irrelevant. no new material facts except for the facts of the examineination done since our last hearing and it may not have been what the sunset neighboring association may not when we wanted but done and positive. the new facts are better and i believe this the impeachment admitted the construction of the site has no beering on the issues and levels taking accomplice in the neighborhood. i see a bright line between the contamination need to bes remedied and the permit this we are here to consider. and you know when thshg is manage this happens to us a lot

in different circumstances usually less dire and usual low with, lot list scientific of dast we have to go through when we are land lord tenant issues we finds ourselves the conflict with residents and machine theles needs to worked out and a solution. it is prebl best view in the civil kurts if there is an on going problem. we electric to not this issue but electric to the permit and the under lying other person tors make a determination. if the dtsc and the d. health does not dot process.

i upon don't look, i am not i see how sb35 can be condition fouz pregnant tedious and difficult. i have to ask myself. do we have grounds under sb35 to appeal this. upon even if we identify today as being material to the issues we are here i don't think it is material. even if we d and this circumstance i don't think i way to get there. the objective standards urn the planning code for dealing with contamination issues are through the ordinance. has enengaged the procedures. they have gone further as i have asked for them and brought in. than i have more expertise and resources and an ability to go about these things.

this process this is supposed to take accomplice is on going. everythingose that check list is also on going. so i don't see our way out even if we wanted. i go become to the fact that feign it is not when we want exclude let's be clear we get nervous as a board about playing amateur architect. now scientists and amateur environmental scientists. even you know i believe that if they have in the done when we asked for the first time and be clear we were trying to figure that out and not clear amongst ourselves what that looks for. we have did thea that says that the source is not on site if you have a source and pull here it can move back to that area xu

may pull more of it your way like using a rack um with a fire about 10 feet away. vacs um up motor vehicle and pull moreover with you and does not address the fire part and i world of resources which so regrettablely the state of california and city finds itself in. if we deploy resources to clone it,let clone it up and not in a way that you know clones it up for a fd period of time. over here when the fire may be there we are monitoring the wrong pot we are in the cloned the damn thing this . said, let's clean it up and makure they clone it up and realize it does in the have anything to do with the permit i will not vote to uphold the appeal. >> thank you. my thoughts are in line with commissioner eppler.

it feels like we are stepping outside of our element if we are calling ball and instructor:s on science. and as commissioner eppler noted. the city is going through the press. dph gone through the process. brought in an agency part of this process. we are not in a position to -- impose conditions. about the community engage am they have to under go. i thought oui were clear about our preference and i heard there was know openness for that.

we don't have outside of our expert ease to decide one way or another. you know i think i would hope that whether or not the permit holder or the agencies that are tasked with the studies i wish tht more had been done on really if we have a lot of confidence in the under loyaling science and the results to just driveway this message home and it is a you know there is one flop says, hey. sb35 or hey. my report limp is a link.

and says i understand where you are coming from this is why you should in the be concerned. that did not happen. emotionally, there is an unsatisfying feeling to see that you know i think you could play the public comment from february tonight and would have sounded the same. and that's -- that's one part of of what i'm going through. but on the, hand we do have to consider the press this commissioner eppler pointed. the expertise of the agency and is think if wore to go down this path and deny the appeal on

these grounds that the deference to the experts in the your from the state is not advisable or adequate. i worry we get a lot of appeals. we get a lot where we don't go throughout science we have not been asked to. fewe were to get appealless of the weight bearing safety standards of dbi. and member bring in experts. you know contending that the science behind those standards within the building department are complete low out of whack we would say we need a big are boat. we are not the body that decides whether or not the engineering under pinnings of our code requirements are rallid you go talk to the board of

supervisors. may have to talk to the state. and were we had testimony. from the appellates here than i are more or less conceding this is a stopgap. for a big are battle this we are waging against the development in general in the neighborhood against, the dtsc's of upon methods used and again i think we need a bigger boat it decide the questions. and as much as we can engage with a thouz an pages. have a 5 hour meeting every 6 months that's not adequate it decide the questions this leaves me with deferring to our

experts. it is in the that dislawyer to the debate waged throughout the country with the pandemic. right. where we have inexact science hopeful low the science behind pc e is mature and developed compared to early days of covid. what do we do in our governments. we can't halt you know every government action until we wait for completely exhaustive studies on every question. sometimes zee to accept that -- the experts who are incentivized and entrusted look and get the answer right. are going to do their best.

and by the people of the city. if that come out wrong. the i mean the remedy and the case of of loaf will not be a building permit. tell be going to the state for damages if this it is truly out of whack. so -- you know it seems like the standard that we would be apply nothing this case would require any and permit activity now we have been there is an issue in the neighborhood. i feel like this will require that any permit potential low if we go biet language in the supervisor's resolution, you know putting on planning to get

it right on. 46 or not pachlsz i feel like you know, with this standard, is everything cua in the neighborhood. am going to stop for years until we remediate the contamination issue in a neighborhood. that feels like inappropriate standard. so as sympathetic as i am to the public comments supporting the appeal. as frustrated as i am with lack community engage that taken place since february i'm left with the baseline situation where there is a process. if the will appellates or the public are in the satisfied with

this process. this is in the the body to challenge or over turn this process. but per of this process we do defer to a dph and defer to dtsc if than i are telling you the data improved since february i can't find the grounds for an appeal. i see commissioner trasvina. thank you i realize it islet and the 4 of us expressed our viewos this i think because i disagree with my rapid clothes. 2 of them i want to make a couple points one is that -- people on appeals boards make judgments about experts all the time. and you have here 2 sets of experts or more.

. you kr documentation on behalf of the community about the -- source and the extent of the of the pc e. we have on the other hand rely on our city experts. we had this is like three strikes the first time the dph person we hardly got somebody unprepared. not his fault. who he sent. unprepared. and people saying there would be communing. they med it sound there would be community. none occurred. so. and then we have the well, we did this testing and when the mount was not asking than i asked for something and he wills

did the testing than i did no issue about the ground water that was stipulated the testing was done elsewhere. i consider that are and then -- i -- other aspects well is an appropriate time say the experts got it wrong or the process was wrong. left time we met we had issue about privacy. and the issue and zoning administrator said the legal standard has to do with and and unusual sense of privacy but no accomplice for fortunate say this is my privacy right they riloyal on the permit holder that is never going it work you have the wrong people at the table there was no communication on this. either from the people who want

this build built or dtsc than i med rep cent apgdzs to president swig about their level of communication. that was not done. given they are made to president swig and heave is our president, i would ask this we continue this so for him to be part of this discussion. he has the long are history then and there all of us put together and the long history on how this board works. i would ask we then and there to the >> i want to add a few things as well. um -- first i'm not comfortable

telling the sunset residents than i should feel save that is when it boils down to a moral ethical issue for me. and i do and i can take this in account and i am. and i'm find saying this on the record, frankly. i agree with vice president lopez that this body is in the the one this should hear this. unfortunately we don't have another body this is more appropriate to hear this at the current time. you know, i certainly think we are attorneys in the environmental experts. and frankly, this is not be lit gift in the the context of permit appeals this is not the appropriate forum we don't have an appropriate forum it would be an environmental commission i don't think exists filled

environmental experts who are residence dens and have interests this this. we don't have this nowhere for the community for neighborhood association or concerned niches toinally to. we have the board of appeals which for all intensive purposes become a catch all in many way and we have taken it upon ourselves in many instances to and policy and city and city operations and city administration. and -- to me this is the most consequential of any of the issue i feel strong low about other things i stated and this one takes the cake there are people's lives at risk here. and you know, i den think oui

should be the body when in vowed with this hour but ultimately our state legislators ripped, way the other layers of review so can't go to planning and can't go to other commissions and it is here and >> we know the review of this potential low with sb35 limitations but you know, ultimately legal advice is this and we make the say. i don't think we have the votes it guarantee the appeal tonight. i'm not i'm no method ma mathematician but i can count. if ever i time to make a loam of faith this is the time.

commissioner eppler. thank you i respect your positions and views on this. i want to be clear i'm not telling the public than i should feel safe i foal this needs to be addressed the approval of the permit or denial does in the a thing to help them in my analysis of all of the data begin from the testimony tonightful thank you. il echo that. i think i don't want to conflit the denial of appeal with a lack of lack of interest in public safety and public health. a lack of interest in public input in the process. the point is that this is not the forum. this is not where this dispute

should be settled. it is a big are problem than i building permit. at this time pin we don't have a forum we may not have it within the permit approval process. but there are the courts. and if memory serves, there is litigation related it this development and if memory serves i think we heard testimony that this issue is in the i part of this litigation. which -- which raises the question, of if this is such a central driver to this project, you know why is it not tackled more robust way.

in a forum more appropriate for this dispute and fact finding. so. to the find that we will need president swig's input i think you know in my mind, we reached a decision on the left permit. i think a lot of the early questioning this evening was about what changed? since february? and -- you know the thrust of this -- testimony in my mind was that you know we have a strong reason to believe that this is not the source and this thing conducted by the entrusted with carrying out this testing. suggests this this is not the source and in the going to be

positive or forclose the broader clone up project. if we move forward with this permit which is just a small pos in the broader landscape of figuring out where the source is and cleaning it up. as much as i don't want to for that to be any kind of statement against president swig's leadership or the conversations we would make to the conversation. i think this based on what is presented if anything more data to suggest this -- should move forward. i am prepared to make a notion deny and make that motion. >> on when basis. the base i this the permit was properly issued. >> on that motion to deny the appeal commissioner trasvina?

>> no. >> commissioner lemberg. >> no. >> commissioner eppler. >> yes. >> this motion fails 2-2 do we have another motion on the table? i move to continue the merit for the participation of president swig. >> okay. under the board rowels i matter continued if the vote of the missing commissioner would make a difference in this case tell in the make a difference. >> i don't know how you predict the future. it may or may not. looks like we are 2-2 now. >> we are now. >> okay we have a motion and when would you like to continue this to september 6? >> september 6.

13th. september 27th. the earliest date. >> we don't know if this will pass are the parties available on september 6? okay. and what about the appellates you visible. we have a motion from commissioner trasvina to continue to september 6 so that president swig can participate. is this right? >> okay on this motion. >> before we go, [inaudible] did you have. >> if this motion fails, and 2 to 2 again where does this leave us. if we don't have another motion that passes the under lying

the -- upheld is i matter of operation of law. >> it will be denied. on the motion to continue this item to september 6, vice president lopez? >> no. >> commissioner lemberg. >> yes. why commissioner eppler. >> no. >> this motion fails. so -- it does in the electric like we will get a motion another motion. so far that would money that the permit upheld and appeal is denied. >> that would conclude the hearing. thank you.

>> my name is marta i'm the management here with public works. it is found in the upon 1997. it is the only public access glass studio in san francisco. we give access to everybody. you don't have to be an experienced artist to take classes we offer beginning level programming. events. fund raisers, it is about giving everyone who is interested in the opportunity to try glass to

work with glass and experience mediums. >> i'm linda i'm part owner and manager of the paper tree in japantownful i'm hope to create a destination. not only do we have our huge selection of origami paper and book but a museum everybody can enjoy that and see what can be done by folding paper >> good to see amazing origami. a selection of paper. got wonderful gifts from japan and great customer service. >> i'm holly and i am the owner of [inaudible] in san francisco. >> we offer classes. and open studio access. workshops lead by local artists that you can see here we have a [inaudible]. and people should expect to join the community and just learn about local bay area artists in

the process. >> you are watching san francisco rising. a special guest today. >> i am chris and you are watching san francisco rising. focused on rebuilding and reimagining our city. our guest is the director of financial justice in the san

francisco office of treasure to talk about how the city has taken a national lead in this effort and how the program is comlishing the goals. welcome to the show. >> thanks so much for having me. >> thank you for being here. can we start by talking about the financial justice project in a broad sense. when did the initiative start and what is the intent? >> sure. it launched in 2016. since then we take a hard look at fines, fees, tickets, financial penalties hitting people with low incomes and especially people of color really hard. it is our job to assess and reform these fines and fees. >> do you have any comments for people financially stressed? >> yes. the financial justice project was started in response pop

community outcry about the heavy toll of fines and fees. when people struggling face an unexpected penalty beyond ability to pay they face a bigger punishment than originally intended. a spiral of consequences set in. a small problem grows bigger. for example the traffic ticket this is california are hundreds of dollars, most expensive in the nation. a few years back we heard tens of thousands in san francisco had driver's licenses suspended not for dangerous driving but because they couldn't afford to pay traffic tickets or miss traffic court date. if they lose the license they have a hard time keeping their job and lose it. that is confirmed by research. we make it much harder for people to pay or meet financial obligations. it is way too extreme of penalty for the crime of not being able to pay.

we were also hearing about thousands of people who were getting cars towed. they couldn't pay $500 to get them back and were losing their cars. at the time we hand people a bill when they got out of jail to pay thousands in fees we charged up to $35 per day to rent electronic ankle monitor, $1,800 upfront to pay for three years of monthly $50 probation fees. people getting out of jail can't pay these. they need to get back on their feet. we weren't collecting much on them. it wasn't clear what we were accomplishing other than a world of pain on people. we were charging mothers and grandmothers hundreds of dollars in phone call fee to accept calls from the san francisco jail. we heard from black and brown women struggling to make

terrible choices do. i pay rent or accept this call from my incarcerated son. the list goes on and on. so much of this looked like lose-lose for government and people. these penalties were high pain, hitting people hard, low gain. not bringing in much revenue. there had to be a better way. >> it is important not to punish people financially there. are issues to address. >> sure. there are three core principles that drive our work. first, we believe we should be able to hold people accountable without putting them in financial distress. second you should not pay a bigger penalty because your wallet is thinner. $300 hits doctors and daycare workers differently.

they can get in a tailspin, they lose the license. we dig them in a hole they can't get out of. these need to be proportioned to people's incomes. third. we should not balance the budget on the backs of the poorest people in the city. >> financial justice project was launched in 2016. can you talk about the accomplishments? >> sure sometimes it is to base a fine on the ability to pay. consequences proportional to the offense and the person. other times if the fee's job is to recoupe costs primarily on low-income people. we recommend elimination. other times we recommend a different accountability that does not require a money payment. here are a few examples. we have implemented many sliding

scale discounts for low-income people who get towed or have parking tickets they cannot afford. you pay a penalty according to income. people with low incomes pay less. we also became the first city in the nation to stop suspending people's licenses when they could not pay traffic tickets. we focused on ways to make it easier for people to pay through payment plans, sliding discounts and eliminating add on fees to jack up prices of tickets. this reform is the law of the land in california. it has spread to 23 other states. we also stopped handing people a bill when they get out of jail and eliminated fees charged to people in criminal justice system. they have been punished in a lot of ways. gone to jail, under supervision, the collection rate on the fees was so low we weren't bringing

in much revenue. the probation fee collection rate was 9%. this reform has become law from california and is spreading to other states. we made all calls from jail free. the more incarcerated people are in touch with families the better they do when they get out. it was penny wise and pound foolish. now phone calls are free. incarcerated people spend 80% more time in touch where families. that means they will do better when they get out. we eliminated fines for overdue library books. research shows were locking low income and people of color out of libraries. there are better ways to get people to return books, e-mail reminders or automatically renew if there is no one in line for it.

this has spread to other cities that eliminated overdue library fines. these hold people accountable but not in financial distress can work better for government. local government can spend more to collect the fees than they bring in. when you proportion the fine with income they pay more readily. this impact can go down and revenues can go up. >> i know there is an initial group that joined the project. they had a boot camp to introduce the program to large audience. is this gaining traction across the country? >> yes 10 cities were selected to launch the fines for fee justice. they adopted various reforms like we did in san francisco. as you mentioned we just hosted

a boot camp in phoenix, arizona. teams of judges and mayors came from 50 cities to learn how to implement reforms like we have in san francisco. there is a growing realization the penalties are blunt instruments with all kinds of unintended consequences. it is the job of every public servant to find a better way. governance should equalize opportunity not drive inequality. >> quite right. thank you so much. i really appreciate you coming on the show. thank you for your time today. >> thank you, chris. >> that is it for this episode. we will be back shortly. you are watching san francisco rising. thanks for watching.

>> good afternoon, hello. welcome to the ferry building's birthday, yoo hoo! what great weather we have to celebrate. i'm elaine executive director of the port of san francisco and i have the distinct honor of opening up this grand celebration. as the executive director of the port, my team and i have the awesome responsibility of 7 and a half miles of water front and it includes this they majestic building. i want to thank the people who put this together, lillian and justin of my group. thank you people behind the scenes who made it happen. [applause] we've got some very special people here today to make this celebration very grand. we have our mayor, mayor london breed, who will sp