Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 20240712

And it takes teamwork to get this done. This is not something that we normally do. As you all know, this is what were faced with. We said from the beginning, we will Work Together and get things done. And this is another good example of that. Thank you very much, mayor, breed. So, madam clerk, lets go ahead and go to our special order. Clerk okay. Special order at 2 00 p. M. The appearance by the honorable mayor london n. Breed. There being no questions submitted from the representatives of districts 1, 2, 3 and 4, the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes. President yee okay. So, welcome, madam mayor, mayor breed. Mayor breed thank you. President yee topics submitted by supervisors today. We welcome you to share your remarks. So go ahead. Mayor breed thank you, president yee. And i truly really appreciate your partnership, especially on the Economic Recovery Task force, which you know that well be releasing a report on the work that you all did in october and im really excited about that. Thank you for having me here today. Today i really want to talk about specifically Small Businesses, because its been a hard six months for anyone trying to make a living in San Francisco. But especially for those in our city who keep our storefronts open. It was already very challenging even before covid. This city has not done its part for people to have Small Businesses in the city. They have endured month after month of shutdown and uncertainty, we had to pause our reopening in june, just when we thought we were moving forward. In trying to navigate, keeping their customers happy, their employees paid and their doors open. Weve tried to help when nearly 30 million in funding for paid sick leave, grants and zerointerest loans and our sharedspace program to give them more room to operate safely outdoors. But still its been hard. The good news is over the last few weeks, weve begun to move forward with a number of reopenings for our Small Businesses community. First, our Outdoor Services for personal services and gym. Now this week both are open indoors, because most of us know many of those services cannot even operate outdoors in the first place. We are until conversations with our restaurant owners, because we know that while they have been allowed to open outdoors and for takeout, thats not enough for them to survive. As federal support for Small Businesses drives up, its getting even harder for our businesses, even those that are able to open. Weve never made it easy as a city for Small Businesses to operate. But covid took it to a whole another level. Supervisors, we are lucky. We have not face the challenges these Business Owners have had to face, potentially losing everything that they built. These Business Owners didnt do anything wrong. This crisis is far outside of their control. Now one way we are able to help, we were able to help early was to put in place a commercial eviction moratorium. This prevented our Small Businesses from losing their lease if they couldnt make their rent. As you know, unlike residential leases, commercial leases are ruled by state law. And thanks to an emergency order signed get governor, the state lawing were overridden and we put in commercial evictions at the local level. If the governor does not extend it, thousands of Small Businesses could be put at risk of being evicted. We wont be able to protect them here locally any more. I know Governor Newsom cares about this issue and im hopeful he will extend it or find a way to provide repayment protection so that our Small Businesses are not put at risk. Our Small Businesses need us, our city needs this. And i know supervisor peskin is introducing a resolution today to put this board on record in support of extending the moratorium and im confident that you all share these values of protecting our small Business Owners. We dont know when covid will end, so these protections need to be extended. We cant lose sight of the need to do more. And i really want to thank supervisor fewer, supervisor peskin, and supervisor safai for some of their work early on around Small Businesses. But we have to do more. We cant just keep talking about caring about our Small Businesses and not willing to take risks and make significant policy changes, so that they dont continue to deal with the challenges of the bureaucracy, the layered fees and all of the other issues that they face. The time is now to focus on Real Solutions and thats what will be coming out of my office, which we know that some of the things that weve already done have not necessarily put a debit in the challenges that they continue to have. We have to do more and we have to do more now. Thank you for the opportunity. Clerk muted, mr. President. President yee thank you, madam mayor, for joining us today. This concludes our special order. This item shall be now filed. [gavel] thanks. Have a nice day. Thank you, madam mayor. President yee so, madam clerk, i guess you can continue with the rest of your communications. Clerk thank you. Thank you, mr. President and members. The minutes will reflect that during the covid19 health emergency, members of the board participated in this meeting remotely, through Video Conference to the same extent as though physically present in their legislative chamber. The board recognizes that the Novel Coronavirus has made the need for Public Access more acute and believes it is essential that all communities with and without the internet have the following options to be able to participate remotely in this meeting. We will accept your written correspondence on any subject, making it part of the legislative file. If youre using the u. S. Mail, address the envelope to the San Francisco board of supervisors, city hall, number 1, carlton b. Goodlett, 94102. If sending an email, use the email address bos sfgov. Org. If using your computer, you can access the live stream by going to sfgovtv. Org. If youre watching the cable cast on your television, use channel 26. Please note that theres a bit of a broadcasting delay, so when youre readying to provide the public testimony, make sure the television is turned down. The text phone can be used to listen to the proceedings and provide Public Comment. The telephone number is crawling across the television and it is streaming as well on your computer. Its 415 6550001. When you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i. D. 146 360 9063. Press pound twice. Youll have joined the proceedings as a listener. Make sure youre going to turn down your television when youre ready to provide Public Comment. We have interpreters present at todays meeting. Will the interpreters please introduce yourselves in succession, in language, to let the Community Know that youre here to assist them with their Public Comment. Miss fay, miss agnes and welcome back mr. Cotenza. [speaking spanish] thank you. [speaking foreign language] thank you. [speaking foreign language] clerk mr. Cotenza . Hello. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, were having trouble with your its sort of fading in and out. Oh, really. Okay. Sorry. Let me start from clerk well okay. Very hard. Thank you. Sorry about that. [speaking spanish] thank you, madam clerk. Clerk thank you, all three of you for being here with us today. I think its important to mention what agenda content is eligible for Public Comment today. There are three 3 00 p. M. Special orders slated to begin consecutively at 3 00 p. M. Each has its own public hearing associated with it. For the 66 Mountain Spring avenue appeal, those are items 6467. The proposed project at 3516 through 3526 folsom street project. And for the 178 seacliff avenue appeal of determination of exemption from Environmental Review, item 7275. Once those items are called individually, that is the opportunity for you to make your Public Comment in association with that those appeals. If your intent is to provide testimony during general Public Comment, please wait for item 80 to be called, where you may be able to speak on the approval of the august 7th and august 11th regular Board Meeting minutes, todays mayoral appearance and the items on the subject well, those items that are subject matter jurisdictionrelated to the board, that are not on the agenda and and items 8186. Those items without reference to committee calendar. All other items, items 163 and items 7678 are not eligible for your public testimony today, as each have already had their duly noticed public hearing at committee. After having any access or connection issues, please contact my office. We have a gentleman standing by 415 5545184. And finally, mr. President , pursuant to title ii of the americans with disability act, through a prior arrangement, we have an individual who has requested to make his Public Comment by telephone, when you determine appropriate. That concludes my communication. Thank you. President yee thank you, madam clerk. Before we get started, just a friendly reminder for all of the supervisors to mute your microphones when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. So, madam clerk, as you mentioned, theres someone that asked for accommodations. So please have them come forward. Clerk thank you. Operations, are we ready to have the speaker make his Public Comment . Hi, my name is zach. Im a disability advocate and Community Organizer. Thank you for this disability accommodation to speak with you all today. During the past couple of weeks, weve all noticed really poisonous air. And air quality issues relating to the fires along our coast. And i think it is without a doubt very understandably our unhoused, homeless neighbors that are experiencing the worst of this crisis. While i am sheltered in my home, i cant even go outside into my garden without coughing and experiencing major respiratory problems, because of the incredibly poor air quality in our city right now. And yet it is our homeless who are facing the worst of this, because they dont have to place to shelter, they dont have a way to get away from this poisonous air. So far the board of supervisors and mayor breed have limited their access to Hotel Shelters that the governor ordered in the beginning of the covid pandemic. And have increased and continued the removal of peoples tents and equipment that they need to survive. Additionally, in the july issue of the coalition of Homeless People, there was some disturbing information presented about mayor breed making calls to the police chief about Homeless People just existing, one quote says man sleeping on bench on hayes street near go. That was mayor breed at a police chief to william scott. He replied, we are sending a team. Eight minutes after that, she said hes still here, but not sleeping. The police chief said, following up now. And theres dozens of these texts of even our mayor calling our police chief, use our taxpayer money and Police Resources to harass the homeless, who are just existing and trying to survive in our city. Supervisors, especially supervisor walton proposed the karen act to stop racially profiled 911 calls. I think its a step in the right direction. Lets please do the same. Clerk thank you. Mr. President. President yee okay. Thank you. So lets go ahead and go through our Consent Agenda. Madam clerk, can you please call thames 123 together. Clerk mr. President , were you going to take the minutes on now . President yee yes. Clerk thanks for reminding me. I can share them with you. President yee i see it now. So today we are approving the minutes from the august 7th, 2020 and august 11th, 2020, regular meetings of the board of supervisors. Are there any changes to these Meeting Minutes . Seeing none okay, seeing none. Can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Fewer. President yee moved by fewer. Second . Shamann. President yee by supervisor shamann. Okay. So madam clerk, go ahead and please call the roll. Clerk okay. On the minutes, supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston . Aye. Clerk preston aye. Supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani . Aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. The minutes will be approved after Public Comment is presented. Okay. Madam clerk now go ahead and call thames 123. Clerk okay. Item 1 the ordinance to authorize pardon me. Yes. The ordinance to authorize well, these are the consent matters. I apologize. Items 123, these items are on consent. They are considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. I dont have to call them all individually. President yee thank you for remembering that. Colleagues, would anyone like to sever any items from the Consent Agenda . Okay. Seeing no names on the roster, madam clerk, please call the roll on items 123. Clerk on items 123. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11s ayes. President yee the resolutions are adopted. Unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to our new business. Please call items 2447. Clerk okay. Items 2447 comprise all matters associated with the fiscal years 20202021 and 20212022. Budget and appropriation ordinance for all city departments and agencies. Item 24 is the budget and appropriation ordinance. I apologize for my dog barking. To appropriate all estimated receipts and expenditures for departments of the city, as of july 31st, 2020, for the fiscal years ending june 30th, 2021 and june 30th, 2022. Item 25 is the annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance. For the fiscal years ending jun, 2022. Item 26 is the resolution to approve the fiscal year 20202021 budget of the office of Community Investment and infrastructure. Operating as a Successor Agency to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and to approve the issuance by ocii of bonds in an aggregate principle amount not to exceed 15. 47 million for the purpose of financing a portion of ocii enforceable obligations. Item 27 is the ordinance to adopt the neighborhood beautification and graffiti Cleanup Fund Tax designation ceiling. For the 2020 tax year. Item 28 is the ordinance appropriating 579. 1 million of proceeds from Revenue Bonds, state loans, grant and wastewater revenues capacity fees and deappropriating and reappropriating 391 Capital Improvement program. Item 29 is the ordinance appropriating 344. 8 million of proceeds from state loans grant funds and water revenues, capacity fees and deand reappropriating water capital appropriation of 14. 4 million and deappropriating 3. 5 million waste Capital Project funding. For fiscal years 20212022. Item 30 is the ordinance appropriating 260. 3 million of proceeds from Revenue Bonds, hetch hetchy revenue. Cap and trade allowance and de and reappropriating approximately 341,000 of fund in the walter power Capital Improvement program for fiscal years 20212022. The ordinance appropriating 4. 3 million clean power s. F. Revenue for the clean power s. F. Capital improvement program. For fiscal years 20202021 at 1. 8 million and for 20212022 at 92. 4 million. Item 32 is the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of taxexempt or taxable power Revenue Bonds for various Capital Projects, benefiting the power enterprise in an amount not to exceed 1. 42. 9 million. Item 34 is the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of taxexempt or taxable water Revenue Bonds and other forms of indebtedness. For various capital water projects benefiting the water enterprise in an amount not to exceed 347. 1 million. Item 35 is the examiner fee amounts to remove obsolete references and to include postmortem investigation services. Items 36 is the administrative Code Amendment to authorize the department of Administrative Services to improse a fee for reproduction and notary services. Item 37 authorizes the refunding of certificates of participation for multiple Capital Improvement projects, located at 375 laguna honda boulevard. Or for other property as determined by the director of public finance. In an amount not to exceed 97. 5 million. Item 38 is an ordinance to deappropriate approximately 4. 6 million of series 2010 a circumstances of participation, prior reserve funds and appropriating 1. 2 million of refunding certificates of participation series 2020r1. Including deappropriated funds and 97. 5 million of one or more series of refunding certificates of participation proceeds for fiscal year twitters 20202021. A Digital Signature fee and update other fees to current amounts in the county Clerks Office. Item number 40 is a health code amount to set rates for patient Rate Services provided by the department of Public Health for fiscal years 20202021 and 20212022. Item 41 an administrative Code Amendment to suspend the restrictions of expenditure of Funds Available in the budget savings Incentive Fund and to authorize the use of the fund for any purpose related to the citys response to the covid19 pandemic or its economic impact. Item 42 is an approval of the expenditure plan for the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing fund for 20202021 and 20212022. Item 43 is a resolution to concur with the controllers establishment of the Consumer Price index for 2020. And to adjust the assets line tax by the same rate. Item 44 is a resolution to concur with the controllers certification, that Certain Department services can be performed by a private contractor for a lower cost. And similar work performed by city and county employees. Item 45 is a resolution to concur with the controllers certification that Department Services can be performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees. Item 46, resolution to authorize the San Francisco Public Library to accept and expand 809,000 grant of inkind gifts, services and cash money from the friends of the San Francisco Public Library for a variety of Public Programs and services, direct support. And item 47 is a resolution to suspend the citys financial policy in administrative code section 10. 61, for fiscal year 20202021 and 20212022 to authorize the city to spend selected nonrecurring revenues described in that policy on reoccurring expenditures. That concludes the budget items. Muir muted, mr. President. President yee thank you very much, madam clerk. And dont worry about the dogs barking. Its not the first barking weve had heard for the budget. [laughter] supervisor fewer will make a few remarks and i will ask others to probably hold off on your remarks on the budget, when its heard next week. Supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer thank you very much, president yee. Colleagues, this is a budget process in a year that will go down in history. I know it will be permanently etched in my own personal life history. Our city has had to respond to a series of unprecedented challenges, that strained our structures and capacity in a way weve never seen. But through it all, i watched and was humbled that all budget stakeholders responded with professionalism, grace and a commitment to doing the most for the residents of San Francisco. Beginning in march, the city was faced with covid19 and shelterinplace. When the mayor would have been in the midst of proposed developing a proposed budget. We saw escalating and unforeseen costs and uncertainty about reimbursements from the federal government. Weve seen an ongoing economic recession as a result of the pandemic, and major emphasis on city revenues and, of course, an Immediate Impact on the residents of San Francisco, facing economic leadership, particularly for many lowincome communities and communities of color, who were already struggling to make ends meet. In response to the Police Killings of george floyd and others, weve seen calls locally and across the country to shift investments from Law Enforcement to black communities who have experienced disinvestment for decades. The board inherited a budget from the mayor in august that was balanced on a couple of big assumptions. One, that voters approve a ballot measure overhauling our local business taxes and also assumption that the city workers get give back wages, a challenge for the board, given that labor unions had not actually agreed to give back more wages. Moreover, the amount of Community Ask to address immense need during this pandemic and recession was overwhelming. Totally over 400 million. It was a responsibility of the budget and Appropriations Committee to balance all of these needs and develop a budget package that expresses our San Francisco values and shares the best use of taxpayer dollars and prioritizes services and supports for vulnerable san franciscans. To that end, we passed out of committee this 13. 6 billion budget with the board spending plan to serve our most vulnerable residents in the midst of a pandemic and serious economic recession. Investing in the restoration of services, food security, rental assistance, covert response and Racial Equity for communities hardest hit. The Budget Committee passed a standing plan, that includes 52 million in general Fund Resources for rental subsidies, community service, Covid Response, job training, healthservices and more. It included a modest use of the revenues, still leaving over 750 million in our reserves that restores the cuts to our city workers and city services. And emergency relief for nonprofit organizations and workers and Covid Response for hardhit communities. City workers and nonprofits have been on the front lines of the response of covid19, ensuring our communities are fed and continued access to services and worked tirelessly to prevent the spread of covid19 and treated individuals who became sick. We are talking about librarians who stepped up early to staff, the largest nursing home facility was an example in the nation for preventing an outbreak. Our city workers who continue to clean streets, city workers deployed as disaster workers and nonprofit workers who staffed hotel rooms for vulnerable populations, responded to the needs of the community during this unprecedented crisis and continue to do so and staffing our Community Learning hubs. I am immensely appreciative of the work of our City Employees and nonprofit organizations, who are at the core of making our city safe and healthy during this time. And i think the spending plan reflects intention from myself and my colleagues on the board of supervisors to follow through on our funding commitments to these critical partners in the midst of this crisis. I must extend my deep appreciation to all of our partners through this intense budget process. Budget Appropriation Committee members shamann walton, rafael mandelman, Hillary Ronen and president noree nor norman y. City controller Ben Rosenfield and his team with support and responsiveness. Mayor breeds director for her collaboration and direct communication. Our phenomenal budget and elective analysts for their detailed analysts that guided the discussion and the tireless and everprofessional clerk and Clerks Office for keeping us on track and staffing wildly long budget meetings. I would be remissed remiss if i didnt recognize chelsea. For those who are unfamiliar with the word that actually goes on behind the scenes that brings forth the budget, that reflects the needs and priorities of 11 supervisors and hundreds of Community Advocates, allow me to bend your ear for a moment. This process started early, first with chelsea and i feeling extreme anxiety over our role and responsibility of being the chair of the Budget Committee. This happened in about march. I first attempted to get out of it and asked president yee to replace me, which he refused to do. I realized having been on the Budget Committee for the last few years and being a chair last year, our office was the most prepared to take the task on. Thats not to say that we were not terrified that we were not anxietystricken or felt a thousand pounds on our shoulder. We knew it was imminently important that we approach this budget with the same principles that we had last year. To be as inclusive as possible with my colleagues to make sure that voices are heard, especially those in the most vulnerable communities and that we have integrity, transparency and fairness at the forefront. This budget, my colleagues, what happens when the past Committee Organizer finds herself as the trusted it legislative aide of the supervisor that has been appointed chair of the Budget Committee. This meant numerous hours of meetings, with staff of other offices, the mayors budget director and staff, the b. L. A. , the controller and meeting after meeting with Community Advocates and also Holding Workshops on the city budget. It is a result of a Community Organizer who used her skill and knowledge to hold true to a moral compass thats reflected in this budget. Hundreds of hours of work, problemsolving, listening, understanding the nuances and need of communities, the districts and the city. This is the work of my legislative aide chelsea boll ard and i want to congratulate her on this personal accomplishment, which would be exceptional during normal times, but extraordinary during these challenging times. There continues to be unmet need above and beyond what were able to allocate in this budget. Im proud of the work we have done together to finalize a package that reflects the boards and the citys values. In the end, we are one city and our communities need our help now. Lets be bold enough to answer the call. Today the budget and all items inform and introduced at the full board, and according to tradition, should sit for a week before taking action, therefore, i would like to make a motion to continue items number 2447 until next weeks meeting. Second. President yee seconded by supervisor peskin i believe. Thank you, chair fewer. And again, you know, i want to echo your compliments to your chief of staff chelsea. I think everybody would agree. It was her that wanted to keep you on the Budget Committee. [laughter] supervisor fewer thank you. President yee so theres a motion made. Like i said, im sure others will have comments when we actually have the hearing on the budget. But today we have other things. So theres a motion made and seconded to continue items 2447 to our meeting on september 22nd, 2020. So then, madam clerk, could you call the roll on this. Clerk yes, on the motion to continue items 2447 to september 22nd, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor. Supervisor mar . Aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Items 2447 are continued to the meeting of tuesday, september 22nd, 2020. [gavel] madam clerk, lets go to the next item. Clerk item 48 is a resolution to approve and authorize the director of the Mayors Office of housing and community development, mohcd, to ek cute documents relating to loans for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or permanent financing of atrisk housing, located at 270 turk street for an approximate loan amount under 232 million. President yee okay. Madam clerk, clerked a call the roll. Clerk supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. Ronen without objection. [gavel] madam clerk, call item number 49. Clerk is a resolution to approve a Municipal Transportation Agency contract for nextgeneration customer information testimonies, with Transportation Systems inc. , to develop, implement and maintain a new realtime vehicle arrival and Service Update systems for muni in an amount not to exceed 89 million for an initial term of six years with two optional fiveyear terms to cover software, subscription and equipment lifecycle maintenance. President yee madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Resolution is adopted. Clerk item number 50 authorizes the director of property on behalf of the Citys Department of Emergency Management to lease the Real Property located at 1663 Mission Street from speyer and schwartz for approximately 208,000, annual rent with a 3 annual increase over a tenyear period. Anticipated to begin november 1st, 2020 and with documents and with two fiveyear options to extend and to authorize the director of property to execute documents, to make certain modifications and take certain actions and furtherance of this lease and of the resolution and to adopt the appropriate findings. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 50, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Aye. Clerk supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani . Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton . Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee with no objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to item 51. Clerk item 51 a resolution to retroactively authors the department of Public Health to health and expend and expand 488,000 grant if the Health Resources and Services Administration to participate in the ryan white h. I. V. aids program, coronavirus disease response april 1st, 2020 through march 3 3 31st, 2020. President yee madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 51, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] madam clerk, please call items 52 and 53 together. Clerk items 52 and 53 comprise two retroactive amendments to existing Grant Agreements for nutrition programs, item 52 approves the expedited Grant Agreement between the city and selfhelp for the elderly to administer programs and increase the grant amount by approximately 1. 625348 for a total not to exceed an amount of approximately 11. 3 million. And item 53, approves an expedited Grant Agreement to administer nutrition programs and increase the grant amount by approximately 2. 4 million, for a total not to exceed amount of 26. 6 million for both Grant Agreements to commence on july 1st, 2020 and to extend to december 31st, 2020. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on items 52 and 53. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Can you call clerk we called 52 and 53. President yee thats what i thought. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously. Did i do this right . [gavel] madam clerk, please call the next item. Clerk okay. Item 54 is a resolution to rootively authorize the office of Civic Engagement and immigrant affairs to accept and expand an approximate 259,000 supplementation grant from the california complete count census 2020 to support San Franciscos census outreach, education and motivation campaign focusing on hardtocount communities and populations march 1st, 2019 through december 31st, 2020. President yee supervisor preston. Supervisor preston thank you, president yee. I want to remind everyone that we have 15 days to get everybody who has not yet participated in the census. Im wearing my census button and i just want to put out a challenge to all 11 members of the board. And i want to thank sarah sousa and the work shes been doing as a volunteer on weekends and evenings. And i fully intend to meet that challenge, but i want everybody to use the next 15 days to get everybody to be counted, because we all count. Thank you, president yee. President yee thank you. For reminding us. And supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen i just wanted to reiterate that were not doing wonderfully as a county compared to the surrounding counties. As a matter of fact, 10 Percentage Points below our surrounding counties in term terms of people participating voluntarily and answering the census. That could equal hundreds of millions of dollars and lower our Political Representation in congress, et cetera. So its essential that we all are doing our parts, you know, weve been working with all of the food lions in our district that they had people there with ipads so that theyre able to answer the census right then therand there. Of course, its confidential for ten years for 30 years. For 30 years. It is 30 years. I cant thats my own feedback or if someone else is speaking. But just want to make sure that were all doing that final push in our own districts, because were pretty sadly behind. President yee thank you. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll. Clerk on item 54, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] please call the next item. Clerk item 55 is a resolution to approve for purposes of the Internal Revenue code section 147 subsection f, the issuance and sale of revenue obligations by the the california Enterprise Development in an amount not to exceed 25 million to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, renovation, rehabilitation and improvement and or equipping of educational and related facilities to be owned and operated by the california nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, known as the San Francisco friends school. President yee okay. So go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 55, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets move on to number 56. Clerk item 56 is a resolution to retrofitteddively amended cares act for the housing communithouseopportunite United States department of health and urban development, to expended amount of 118,000 between march 15th 2020 through june 30th, 2023. President yee can you please call the roll. Clerk okay. On item 56, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai . Safe aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] madam clerk, number 57. Clerk item 57 is a resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to renew and expand a businessbased Business Improvement district known as the Fishermans Wharf Portside Community benefit district, a multiyear assessment on identified businesses in the district to approve the management district plan and proposed boundaries map to order and set the date and time for a remote public hearing november 17th, 2020 at 3 00 p. M. We have a board of supervisors will convene in the setting as a committee of the whole to approve the form of the public hearing notice and the assessment ballots to direct the preparation of findings and proper notice of the public hearing as required by law. President yee okay, madam clerk, can you call the roll. Clerk on item 57. Miles per hour pes supervisor peskin. Supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor. Supervisor safai . Aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk Miles Per Hour mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. Mr. Olson. President yee[ please stand ]. Go ahead and call the roll for items 5860. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor ronen. Ronen, aye. Supervisor safai. Safai, aye. Supervisor steph . Aye. Supervisor walton, aye. Supervisor yee . Yee, aye. Supervisor fewer . Aye. Supervisor mandelman . Aye. And supervisor moore . All right. There are 11 ayes. Supervisor yee resolutions are adopted unanimously. I know it was three, but i want to go through the next few items before we get to the special order. Madam clerk, call item 61. Clerk a resolution to authorize the sfacc or San Francisco animal care and control to enter into a use agreement with Big Fish Entertainment llc to develop and produce documentary series to be known as live rescue regarding animal Emergency Rescue calls and the animal control officers. And grant all necessary trademark licenses and the exclusive right for one year to traditional and digital networks. President madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Peskin, aye. Supervisor preston . An aye. Preston, aye. Supervisor ronen . Aye. Ronen, aye. Supervisor safai . Aye. Safai, aye. Supervisor stefani . Aye. Stefani, aye. Supervisor walton . Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor yee . Aye. Yee, aye. Supervisor fewer . Aye. Supervisor haney . Haney, aye. Supervisor mandelman . Aye. Mandelman, aye. And supervisor mar . Mar, aye. There are 1 1 ayes. The resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, item number 62. Clerk motion to appoint Sarah Boudreau to the bicycle advisory committee. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston . Aye. Supervisor ronen . Aye. Ronen, aye. Supervisor safai . Aye. Safai, aye. Supervisor stefani . An aye. Stefani, aye. Supervisor walton . Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor yee . Aye. Yee, ai aye. Supervisor fewer . Supervisor haney . Haney, aye. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. And supervisor mar. Aye. Mar, aye. There are 11 ayes. President and the motion is approved unanimously. Please call item 63. A motion to reappoint alan cooper to the commission on the aging advisory council, term ending march 31, 2022 for allen cooper. President go ahead and call the roll. Clerk supervisor peskin . Aye. Clerk peskin, aye. Supervisor preston . Aye. Clerk supervisor ronen . Aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Aye. Clerk supervisor stefani . Aye. Clerk supervisor walton . Aye. Clerk supervisor yee . Aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Aye. Clerk supervisor haney . Aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman . Aye. Clerk supervisor mar . Aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President okay. Without objection, the motion is approved unanimously. Okay. Madam clerk, lets go to the special 3 00 p. M. Special order of the day. 64 through 67. Clerk the appeal of determination exempt for the 66 Mountain Spring avenue project. This hearing is continued from august 25, 2020. Item 64 is the public hearing of persons interested in this determination of exemption from Environmental Review issued as a categorical exemption by the California Environmental quality act. For the Mountain Spring avenue proposed project to demolish an existing twostory, one family house and construct a threestory, Single Family house. Item 65 is the motion to affirm the categorical exemption as dpe determined by the Planning Department. Item 616 the conditionally reversing the categorical exemption. And item 67 is the preparation of findings reversing the categorical exemption determination by the department. President colleagues we have before us an appeal for the proposed project at 66 Mountain Spring avenue. This appeal is related to the Planning Departments determination that the project is categorically exempt from further Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act. After the hearing the board will vote on whether to affirm or reverse the categorical exemption from Environmental Review under ceqa. Without objection, we will proceed as follows up to 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant for their representative. Two minutes per speaker in support. Up to 10 minutes for presentation from the city departments. Up to 10 minutes from the project sponsor or their representative. Two minutes per speaker in opposition to the p. U. And in support of the project. And finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or the representative. Colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way . Seeing no objection t public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. Colleagues, this appeal is for the property in my district, district 7, and i will reserve my comments for the end of the hearing. Are there anybody else that would like to make any comments . Seeing nobody on the roster, i will now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. You can have up to 10 minutes. Is it gloria smith . Yes, president yee. Can you see and hear me okay . Supervisor yee yes, we can. Thank you. Tht, president yee and members of the board. I am gloria smith and i am an attorney for the appellants. As you know from our submittals, this appeal is about making sure that the proposed project is safe from potential seismic and landslide impacts. On august 7, the project sponsor opposed this appeal by saying that there had been a site visit that showed no evidence of active slope instability. Dr. Larry carp of u. C. Berkley has expected the entire slope from Mountain Spring avenue down to claritin avenue and he found substantial slope instability in his september 9 report. If the project sponsor missed this, it is highly likely they were simply looking within the project footprint itself rater than the whole area from Mountain Spring avenue down to claritin. And theres no evidence that anyone from d. B. I. Er to Planning Department has gone out and actually inspected this site either. In addition, the project sponsor has claimed, quote, the project will comply with the sfpa during the department of Building Inspections review and will undergo additional review by the Structural Advisory Committee. Appellants find this problematic for several reasons. First, input by the Structural Advisory Committee is only discretionary and its not mandatory under the sfpa so the appellants have no idea whether this will happen or not. Second, slope stability for any new development within San Francisco is the most important use of the citys land use process. We all know San Francisco is prone to earthquakes, fire, drought, and landslides, so human safety is constantly at the forefront for all of us every and the city conducts all the slope analyses after project approval and that is away from public view. We dont believe this is the proper sequence of events to instill confidence within the public and people who live adjacent to and down slope from this project. And as you will hear acutely in a moment, there are to bring to current avenue and the current house has been there since the 1940s. My final point is public agencies must support the exemptions with substantial evidence, but again t city hasnt even looked at the slope stability issue in any substantive way. So therefore, it cant claim there wont be any safety impacts because they havent got on the that step yet. In fact, all the regard is there are slope stability issues. For more specific information on that, i would like to yield the remainder of my time to three residents on claritin avenue that live directly below the project site. And i believe that they have been invited to this team. Ms. Smith, do you know who will be on first . Inits mr. Park. Mr. Theres mr. Park, mr. Jackson, and i am pretty sure its park, but im not quite clear. I think they are all here. Mr. President , we should pause the time of this time has been ticking this entire time. Go ahead and pause it and put back about 20 second i guess. Thank you. Is there any indication that they are able to get on . We are checking the participant list right now, mr. President. Legislative deputy samara, are you familiar with i am here. I am checking. I do not see the names david park. They were not invited on the list. I have for the appellants gloria smith and meg diver. So i dont know where ms. Smith is. Those twr only two names provided to us for the appellant. To clarify, this morning they asked if there would be any additional participants and 10 00 this morning i provided them. I think we can resolve this and reserve my time and i know they are here, so to speak, and when we go to the public session, for those who want to speak in opposition to the project, can we allow them to do that then . I think that is the easiest way to resolve this. They could also speak to support the appeal. That is what i meant. I am happy proceeding that way. Okay. Are you done . I am, thank you. President okay. Thank you. Since she is finished with her comments, lets go to the Public Comments on to speak in support of the appeal. And you have two minutes and if you want to speak please press star and and 3 to be added to the queue. Madam clerk, please call the first speaker. Operations do we have callers in the queue . And 6467 is the appeal of the determination and spring avenue project. And currently four callers in the queue. We will start the first caller. Welcome, caller. Caller all right. When you hear the you have been unmuted, just start speaking. If you are listening to your television, that is a bad practice because you will not be in sync with live Public Comment. Do not listen to your television. Operations, lets come back to this caller. Hello, caller. Welcome. Calle caller i am a neighbor in the neighborhood. Madam clerk we are pausing the speakers time. Hello, sir. We are taking Public Comment right now on behalf of the appeal of the 66 Mountain Spring project. We are going to take 10 minutes for the comment and after that we will take against the project appeal. Press star 3 to go back in line. We should certainly return to you. You will be first on the list hopefully. Okay. He must have followed the instructions. Pressed star 3. Caller i think i am unmuted. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Hi there. Caller i am frank jackson. My wife and i live at 71 claritin which is south of 66 Mountain Spring. I would like to thank you guys for considering the appeal and i will make a couple of quick comments as someone affected by it. The backyards of 71 and 75 claritin are adjacent to 66 Mountain Spring where the proposed construction is going to take place. And in particular, they are down the hill directly from it. We are down the hill. And it is a very steep hill. You cant stand in our backyard. You cant walk upright in them. Rather, you can only scale them by essentially rock climbing. And all the data from the sfgov. Org which is classified as a landside zone. If this land, should it slide l fall on our home. We have a sheer cliff going up. That website also states that developers in such zones may be required to investigate potential hazards during the local permitting process. Our concern is that this proposed construction could possibly destabilize the hillside. Even without stress of construction, there is a pile of rubble at the base of my hill with good sized rocks and our fear is that the construction could destabilize it further. The existing house there is set back quite a ways from the edge of the slope, but the increase in size and change in location were afraid could further destabilize things. Anyway, my family depends on this house. It is our largest single asset. Very important to us. We urge the board to reverse the exemption and require review so the proper Due Diligence and seismic diligence can be performed. Clerk thank you for your comment. Operations, lets hear from next caller in support of the appeal of the 66 Mountain Spring project. Welcome, caller. Caller im sorry. I am calling for item 68. Okay. Then we are currently hearing items 6467. That would be the next appeal. Dont go too far. Can i put back in queue . Yes. You can just press star 3 and that should put you back into listening mode. Okay. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Welcome, caller. Caller hello . Clerk welcome. Caller hello. Yes, i am here to urge the denial of the appeal. I believe i need to get back in line. Clerk that is right. Star 3. This is great participation. Thank you. Okay. We will return to you in a moment. Operations, is there another caller in the queue . Who is interested in supporting the appellant . This appeal of 66 Mountain Spring. Caller yes, there is. Clerk welcome. Caller yes, there is someone. Clerk i do support the appeal because i think an Environmental Review should be conducted because it is not stopping the project. Its just saying that a review should be conducted and who know what is the findings will be. I personally dont think there is any reason not to have the review. All right. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller to hear from . Who is interested in supporting the appellant. Hello, caller. Hello, caller. You are unmuted. You have the attention of the board of supervisors. I believe i hear your television in the background. Hello. Clerk welcome. Caller thank you. I live in 75 claritin avenue. I agree all the points mr. Jackson made previously here and just to be efficient, i will also talk about the proper demolition and construction of the property at 66 Mountain Spring avenue. It is where my house is already in a very, very steep slope. I want the city to make sure the demolition and construction doesnt have any adverse impact on my familys living quality and our right to live in our property safely, peacefully and comfortably as usual. And especially in a city always prone to earthquake. And secondly, at the experience presently, i use my residence as my office to run my startup company. My two young daughters use their rooms as the elementary and preschool classroom. We use our home as Business Office and small classrooms. I urge the city to consider this reality that any adverse risk may impose on our property potentially due to the demolition and construction will be compounding meaning not just to Family Living but to business as well as education. Thirdly, the proper construction is almost three times as large as the existing house. The sheer size and scale of the necessary demolition should be reduced totally and made smaller given the facts i mention earlier. I would like to point out the current sponsor only provides a simpler, boilerplate report that i can only see as negligence for the neighborhood. And the city should take the necessary excess steps to make sure about the Proper Development plan, too. Lastly, again, as we all say, there are and will be a series of adverse impacts from the climate change. And we have unpresented rainfall or Something Else that can end with the risk of landslide that is of concern and the proper plan is be structurally irrelevant. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, sir. I understand there is one other person in the queue. Operations, lets hear from them. We are currently taking Public Comment on behalf of the appellant for appeal of determination of exemption from Environmental Review for 66 Mountain Spring avenue. If you are in support of the project, we havent yet take than Public Comment. We will in a moment. If you are in line listening, just press star 3 and that will move you into line to speak. Otherwise we will take the next caller. Welcome, caller. Caller hello. Thank you very much for taking my call. I live at 79 claritin avenue. I am a neighbor of mr. Jackson and the parks who just spoke. They actually articulated my concern really well. Basically on the avenue which is down the road from the proposed construction site at 66 we have the same concern. There is a slope but my its almost more like a cliff. You have to climb it, that is how steep it is. I do have a concern that was raised by the previous speakers that the propoeszed construction will negatively impact the security and safety of my backyard in imposing increased safety risk to my property and myself. So i would currently request supervisors to consider the revers reversal of declining the California Environmental quality act and is issued to the pushback to the Planning Department for further diligence in environmental assessment. Thank you very much for taking my call. Clerk thank you for your comments. We understand that there is an individual on the line who we have gone back to three separate times, and they have not had their opportunity to speak. Possible you are not interested in speaking on behalf of the appellant, which is fine. But we just want to unmute your phone one last time to make sure you have access. Operations, can you unmute that caller please. We ole give it a try. Hello, caller. I can hear your television. Please turn it down. You are welcome to provide your comment now. Okay. Hello, caller. All right. Thank you, operations, for helping me have that caller make comments, but perhaps they are not interested, mr. President. I believe does that complete the queue, operations . Yes, madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk thank you. Mr. President . President seeing no other speakers for Public Comment in support of the appeal, then Public Comment is now closed. Now we will have up to 10 minutes for representatives of the Planning Department to give a presentation. All right. Is that my queue . President that is your queue. Good afternoon, president yee and board member bs. I am lauren from Planning Department staff. I am here sod with lisa gibson, director of Environmental Planning, and Deborah James and jessica range, principal environmental planner to address the appeal of the categorical exemption for the proposed project at 6 Mountain Spring avenue, and i will go ahead and share my screen actually. I do have a small presentation for you. Okay. On february 12, 2019 can everybody see the screen . The presentation . President yes. On february 12, 2019 the department determined that the project was categorically exempt under California Environmental quality act ceqa under path one which applies to, among other things, the demolition and one Single Family residence and the key consideration under a class one exemption is that the project involve no or negligible expansion of use. The project is expense from ceqa review under a class three categorical assumption that applies to a limited number of small structures including one Single Family residence. In regards to seismic and geotechnical concerns t appellant contends that the department improp properly issued the february 12, 2019 categorical exemption because the developer did not comply with the slope and sliez mick hazard zone protection act. The appellant claims that the project is subject to the ordinance because it contains slopes greater than or equal to 25 sand partially low dated in a state designated land zone to express additional geotechnical concerns from the project. The q3 jooe owe Technical Report does identify that the project may be subject to slope and seismic hazard Protection Zone act. However t official determination of whether or not it applies to the project is made during the Building Departments review of the Building Department which is a process that occurs subsequent to the projects Environmental Review. During the permit review process t Building Department will review the projects plan for performance and the Technical Report and Building Code and determine whether the requirements apply to the project. The projects location on a steep slope and potentially subject to the slope and seismic hazard zone protection act is otoan original circumstance in San Francisco, which has over 40 hills, many of which are developed. The presence of the unusual circumstance alone does not mean they cannot issue a categorical exemption. Rather t appellants must provide substantial evidence there would be a significant Environmental Impact that would occur due to that unusual circumstance. That is not the case here. The Building Department standard in review of the Building Permit application with the state and local building process would not result in Significant Impacts to geological hazards if appellant has not provided any information supported by substantial evidence that the project after conforming to the Building Code environment would result in a Significant Impact. In regard to the aesthetic impact t appellant contends that the project would result in a Significant Impact because the project does not comply with the citys residential Design Guidelines or with the residential design teams recommendation. Contrary to the appellants claim, the requirements of ceqa state that aesthetic impacts of residential in fill projects located in a transit priority area shall not be considered Significant Impacts on the environment and the project site is currently developed and is located within a transit priority area as defined in the ceqa guideline because it is within 1 2 mile of the transit stop. As such, any impact of the proposed residential project cannot be considered a Significant Impact on the environment under ceqa. The Planning Department acknowledges the public system heard today for concerns related to Environmental Issues and either addressed in the appeal response and other comments relate to the merits of the project. They are not concerned with the appeal and the departments response addresses whether the categorical exemption prepared for the project will meet the environments of the California Environmental quality act. In conclusion, the appellant has not demonstrated that the categorical exemption failed to comply with the requirements of ceqa, the ceqa guidelines or chapter 31 of the San Francisco administrative code. Therefore, the Planning Department respectfully recommends that the board uphold the Planning Departments issuance of the categorical exemption and reject the appellants appeal. This concludes the departments presentation. My colleagues from the Planning Department and i are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. So just curious, what circumstances would Environmental Planning not exempt a Single Family home demolition and rebuilding of a new home . And what would trigger Environmental Planning and seems like there is very few situations where i have seen where they do not exempt this type of situation where a Single Family home with the home to trigger conditions that would trigger not having or not exempting for it to have conditional use, i guess. I would probably defer to one of my senior planners and someone else who may be able to answer that in more detail. I have been with the department for about six months and i am fairly new to these types of processes. If jessica is on. And they should be. What circumstances would Environmental Planning not except a Single Family home and demolition and rebuilding a new home . That is a great question. We look at whether or not any of the exceptions would be met such as whether or not the project would demolish a historic resource, whether or not there are the potential for cumulative impacts and in a significant Environmental Impact to name a few. What about slopability . And as lauren mentioned and with slope stability is slope stability San Francisco is not necessarily an unusual circumstance. There are many project slopes and we have the slope requirement zone which could apply to the project that d. B. I. Review confirm to the Building Code and there would be no significant Environmental Impact that would occur. Isnt that an Environmental Review . We often rely on d. B. I. Review process during the Building Code to ensure that there could be no Significant Impacts. So frame, under is slope and zone act f i am saying that directly. And to with the additional ways to determine what may be a third party and may determine that a Structural Review Committee be performed and under no circumstances are they to have that committee approve a project that has the Significant Impact. On this particular project does not require an additional inspection . Is this something that happens later . You are muted, jessica. My understanding is that can part of the project site is maybe subject to the review process and d. B. I. When they review the project would determine whether or not the project is to comply with that act subsequent to Planning Departments review. And my colleague is here if he can explain more about the d. B. I. Review process. Supervisor yee yes, thank you. And this is deborah dwyer, Planning Department staff. I want to know that the state identified seismic hazard mapping act was instituted in 1990. And as part of that state requirement which this project site would be subject to, the geoTechnical Report actually has to address the landslide hazard and part of d. B. I. Review would be insuring that information is addressed appropriately and to their satisfaction. The steps that jessica mentioned to beef up our look and scrutiny and projects within the zones to have the potential for outside peer review by experts and then if necessary, the Structural Advisory Committee. And the Building Department has the authorization to deny the permits if they are not addressed to their satisfaction. The Building Code relies on the engineer of record. The Structural Engineer and the geotechnical engineer. These are licensed by the state of california and their professional expertise is to acquire the Building Code and insure that whatever foundation is proposed to support the scope of the building that is contemplated and would that there would be appropriate support to insure the safety of that construction. And the Building Code also requires that adjacent structures but this is not the body to address the Building Code requirements. We rely on our colleagues at d. B. I. President if this project was approved, there is still the possibility that what the Building Department would require for mitigation would not be doable . Then the project stops . So t first of all, the abilit to understand the structural calculations and the Engineering Design happens later in the process. The with the area that scrutinizes closely and ensure if it doesnt make sense to them, they will be following up with the Structural Engineer and geotechnical engineer. If it is not if it doesnt make sense and if the measures that are in place is not something that people, that the experts agree would support the structure to an adequate level of safety, then they are not going to approve it. That is my understanding. That is what the Building Code allows for. It awe lous for them to not approve the project. Okay. Supervisor peskin, do you have any other questions . You are muted. Thank you, president yee. I know this is going to sound incendiary, but the reality is we still have Rodrigo Santos who is the Structural Engineer who i just read an article today inmy Mission Local that he is continuing to render advice to d. B. I. But when a project is deemed to be categorically exempt, the underlying concept is that it could have no impact on the environment and indeed, i would pause it since this is in your district that relative to slope stability, the notion to wait for d. B. I. And future reports does not give Decision Makers, in this Case Planning commission and now on appeal to us, the information that they need to determine that it truly could not have an Environmental Impact. I was on this board of supervisors when we had to settle the lawsuit when they went into chief of police hills backyard and that happened in the district that you now represent. Is this categorically exempt and are there things in the record . And i think you are touching on those things, president yee, relative to whether or not there is a fair argument that there could be slope instability and you are replacing one big house with another big house. This is an issue to whether or not downhill neighbors and property may, may be impacted. That i think is why there is a tolerable argument this is not exempt from the California Environmental quality act from the categorical exemptions. I wanted to make those comments for the record. You are muted, president yee. You are muted. Thank you, supervisor peskin. And these are not necessarily intuitive with what comes first and a project a few years ago that the project went ahead and had to do a geological study before and to remember that and i am curious to wait for a study to happen afterwards and rather than the part of the ceqa process. So i am not asking you to reckon, but are there projects similar to this where they have to do the geological study first . As an environment . So i am asking that of city planning or maybe of deborah. Thank you, president yee. And there is an environment for a geotechnical study and we did have that. And we do preliminary review the study to insure it is prepared by a licensed professional. We are also looking at it and may inform other environmental topics to insure that we do understand the full scope of the project. With the Different Levels of disturbance and soil improvement measures that are things we do want to understand as part of the Environmental Review. The actual engineering review of the geotechnical information as well as any subsequent studies that may be needed to address those hazards and we do rely on regulatory process in place through the with the state and local Building Codes and implementing procedures which have modified and strengthened over the last three or four or five years. The Building Code is premised on the fact fa there is a certain minimal level of life safety provided for all construction. It is not no impact but minimal impact. We are saying less than Significant Impact. Mr. President , that is not true. And as a matter of law, and i say this as somebody who is not a lawyer, no, when its categorically exempt, the notion is that it cannot have any Environmental Impact. What you just said respectfully is actually not true. What you just said is that you did analysis and you came to the conclusion that it did not have an adverse impact. Categorical exemption means no analysis whatsoever. And i am not arguing the instant case, but what you just said which is fabbing lully and legally which is factually and legally incorrect. If i may, mr. President. Yes. I just want to add a little nuance to the legal discussion that we are having. For a categorical exemption, it is not the Planning Department that determines whether or not there is a likelihood of an environmental effect. It is the state legislature that has made that decision. If a project falls within one of the categories that is categorically exempt, the starting assumption that there is no Environmental Impact and the exemption does not apply if an exception applies. The exception that we are talking about here is the significant affect exception and in order for the significant affect exception sorry, the significant effect exception to apply, the Planning Department would have to conclude that there were unusual circumstances and there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment because of those unusual circumstances. And what planning staff is saying is project on a slope is not an unusual circumstance in San Francisco. They have determined the first half of the calculation doesnt apply here and that there is not a reasonable possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment. In any event, we know a hill is not an unusual circumstance in San Francisco, and therefore, what planning staff, i believe, is explaining to us is that the significant effect exception does not apply here. President okay. That is, i think, helpful. Lets move on. Supervisor peskin . An i will note for the record that her client did not ask her to offer that. But when it comes to slope stability t reason this board and supervisor passed legislation is because those actually are extraordinary circumstances and that is exactly why half the hill ended up in the backyard and exactly why this board has to through the City Attorneys Office with any amount of litigation over slope instability and why this is for whom i have profound respect. Lets move on. And i believe the next part of this would be to provide the sponsor 10 minutes to present their project. That is not a very good connection. Can you hear me now . Yes. Great. Thank you, mr. President. Good afternoon, supervisors. With the 4400 single square foot family home and the construction just a foot taller than the existing building. The project is determined for class one and class three exemptions to allow for the expansion of the home that reasonable doubt need to be resolved and the Legal Standard is different deferential to staff. The appellant said that the project wouz result in a sigh mick or Geo Technical impact. As is the process, a report was prepared for the project during the Planning Departments Environmental Review which did not identify any evidence of slope instability but acknowledged the use of the seismic zone protection act in this scenario. Now, as is the process during d. B. I. Review of the permit, the slope act says a couple of things. It authorizes d. B. I. To bring in Third Party Review and review by the Structural Advisory Committee, so the appellants attorney is we rely on the technical experts and city staff to determine the degree and need of Third Party Review. And the slope act does require site visits and express approval of the structural plan by the Fire Department, d. P. W. And the Planning Department. And finally, it requires mandatory denial of the permit if d. B. I. And the committee conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposed Structural Design would result in unsafe conditions. This is how we are protected to insure that we know now that its not going to have a Significant Impact because if there is a reasonable possibility of landslide and unsafe conditions, the permit will not be issued. Now, this is the exact purpose of the slope act which was just reviewed by the board with legislation back in 2018. Now, the appellant submitted two letters from their own technical consultant yesterday and both raised concerns about the construction of the slope which is why it applies here and the appropriate Structural Design is determined as a result of the project. Now, what seems to be going on is were trying to reorder the process here. The appellants want a very clear, thorough review of the potential for landslide or other unsafe situation here. And that is exactly what happens during the slope act. This is not the only example where ceqa allows us to rely on applicable law. In San Francisco we have the maher program for sites potentially contaminated with hazardous materials. We say we know d. P. H. Has an ordinance that requires their authorization and review and d. P. H. Will do that and a permit will not be issued authorizing excavation until the review is done and that process that is that legally binding ordinance in place to ensure that the adequate review of the issues takes place before any permit is issues and any construction begin. With all this said, lets be clear this entire hillside is developed with homes in comparable situation. This isnt some extraordinary situation. The project sponsor and their architect have built dozen of project subject to the slope act. It is not uncommon to have a permit subject to the slope act. As it is t proposed home will substantially sit on the same footprint as the existing home which is safely operated for its entire history on the site. So the board has done the review about that process not being rigorous and is unsafe is unfounded. Second, environmental issue that the appellant raises is the project would have a Significant Impact on aesthetics. Im sorry, i am repeating here a bit from what staff have said and will be quick with this. And to start the state legislature has already expressly modified ceqa in 2013 to eliminate the potential for aesthetic impact in urban environments and so legally this project cannot result in a significant aesthetic impact. But beyond that, the building is clearly consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. [please stand by] we respectfully reqthat you deny the appeal. Thank you. Is that all from you . That is, thank you. President yee okay. Right now id like to open it up for Public Comments. If youre here to make statements, please go ahead and press star and then press three object to be added to the queue to speak. You have up to two minutes. Madam clerk, will you please call the first caller. Clerk thank you, mr. President. I want to give a couple of practices, mr. President. Its important for the public to have a quiet location. Please do not listen to your television when youre getting in line to speak. Each speaker will have up to two minutes hig if you got in lie early, press star 3 to speak. If youre in line and on the wrong side, press star 3 to get back into line to listen. I want to make sure we provided the telephone number to the public. It is 415 6550001. Meeting i. D. Number is 146 360 9063. Press pound, pound. We are now, as the president said, inviting members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. Operations, do we have a caller on the line . Yes, i have two caller in the queue. Ill queue the first caller. Clerk thank you. Welcome, caller. Youll have up to two minutes. Yes. Thank you, everybody. My name is Kevin Mccollum and calling in favor of this project. I want to Say Something in particular thats currently exist, built in 1947. The plan calls for the demolition and building of a new structure. Youre talking about ripping down a 73yearold property thats going to be built with obviously better standards, better quality, better materials and much safer home than whats existing there. So i dont see why that would be of a concern for everyone. You know, the builder himself has a great reputation and building here in the city with Quality Projects and the home itself is nearly one story over a garage, comparable in size to homes in the neighborhood. And i just want you to vote in favor of this project and against this appeal. Thank you for your time. Clerk thank you for your comment, sir. Mr. Coup, lets hear from the next speaker. Good afternoon. This is engineer irwin otoole. Im in favor of the project. I worked with the project sponsor on many projects around town. I designed shoring and excavation work for this type of singlefamily home on multiple occasions. Im working down the street and i live in the haight for ten years. I used to walk up there all the time. This is a good project. Its a renovation. It needs to go ahead and keep the Housing Stock in this area. And i see no problem with excavation on this hill. And i have experience with the project sponsor in this line of work. So im for the project. I think its good for the neighborhood. And i want to see it move forward. Clerk thank you for your comments, sir. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is jonathan. And i am calling as longtime family friend of the project sponsor. Im a tenyear resident of San Francisco, currently residing in noe valley, not too far off from this location. The project sponsor has lived in San Francisco for over 30 years, raising their children and playing an active role in the business and philanthropic communities. This is their dream home and i commend its thought definitely design and careful revisions in light of the neighbor es concern. I find it to be a reasonably designed home for the neighborhood and understand that its construction will comply with all Building Department codes, as it relates to geologic and seismic considerations. Although i understand that the neighbors would be concerned about any changes on their street, i find the project to be compatible with the existing and surrounding homes. I roughly request that respectfully request that you support the project, as well as the Planning Commission. Despite neighbors concerns, the projects Structural Design will be fully vetted by the Building Department, as has been discussed in this hearing, during the permitting process, as with any home built in the city. I appreciate your time. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller who is interested in speaking on behalf of the project sponsor or on behalf of the project. Hello. Clerk welcome. Good afternoon. My name is shawn and on behalf of the Residential Builders association of San Francisco. The neighbors and the community will all benefit from the modern engineering, the new retaining walls, designed by the Geo Technical engineer of record and subject to the slope protection act. The heart of this appeal speaks to our process in our sequencing. All of our process already addresses these concerns under the slope protection act. Our approval process has always addressed planning and engineering issues first. And only after theyre approved do they then move to building and other engineering issues. Theres no reason no evidence at all to suggest that we stray from our time proving sequencing. Planning and Environmental Issues go first, building, engineering, fire, a variety of other issues all come after. The slope protection act, the slope protection act comes after that later group. Theres no reason to break from this sequencing. All the concerns brought forward are valid, but they should be and need to be tabled for its future review under the slope protection act. The engineer of record has written a record, testifying to the buildability of this project. Remember, its no different in the house to the right or the house to the left. How and why would anyone suggest changing this longstanding process because of some rocks found at the bottom of the hill. Fifth size rocks at the bottom of the hill is not evidence of instability. Nor is it a significant effect, nor is it a significant effect to the environment. Project sponsors home would be exposed to much greater scrutiny than any of those houses to the left, to the right, up, down or the bottom of the hill. I urge you to deny this appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you to the caller. Operations, is there another caller in the queue who wants to speak on behalf of the project at 66 Mountain Spring avenue, on behalf of the project sponsor . Hi. This is michael cassidy. Im a brother of leo cassidy. And im also a builder. Its highly unusual that the board of supervisors possibly thinks that we need to put the foundation in for the building first before, you know, what size building is approved. At this stage were in the middle of the whole process to see exactly what size, what Square Footage and make the final drawings before we do the engineer drawings. Thats the way the system is set up. The slope act comes in as soon as the drawings are designed. And the engineering comes in after that to support this slope act and the scrutiny comes in after that to see if the engineer did his job right. And if its acceptable and the city engineers look at it and then they have another group to look at it. And, i mean, its not [indiscernible] its just a couple of stories of a house. And not unusual, thousands of houses just like it all around. Its not the policemans backyard. And leo is not the guy that did that job. And Rodrigo Sanchez is not the engineer. So i dont know how [indiscernible] so i hope you approve the project and talk about the people and deal with the people who are involved with the project. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the Mountain Spring project. Hi. My name is joe cassidy. Im also a brother of the project sponsor. And i will be doing the demo and the shoring and the drilling for this project. Ive been involved in hundreds of these projects throughout the city, possibly maybe between 500 and 1,000. I have also do the emergency work for the city and county of San Francisco. So im very familiar with these slopes and slides, because i have worked on most of them from the famous house that fell into the hole in seacliff. And so i want to speak specifically to the neighbors. I dont think they should be concerned. We are a premiere Engineering Company in San Francisco in eggs request vision a and democrat excavation and demolition. I dont want to break my hand by patting myself on the back. We wont be damaging any houses on the clarendon side. I live around the corner. I live on a slope myself. As mike cassidy said a few minutes ago, literally thousands of these homes built throughout San Francisco. And there shouldnt be a concern. Theres a complete engineering review from appear premiere guy like frank rolo, who sits on some of these committees. Ive been involved in highrise shoring, where weve underpinned buildings 50 feet deep. This is a standard detail. Nobody comes ahead and produces a drawing an engineering report prior to getting the project approached. That if theres a real problem, it can be fixed or the project can be denied. So i support the denial of this appeal. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller in support of the project sponsor or on behalf of the Mountain Spring project . Hello. Clerk hello. The floor is yours. Hi. This is james and i just wanted to call in my support for the project. Its a very welldesigned home. Again reiterating the fact that its just one story over the garage. When you drive up the street, Mountain Spring, you see quite a few homes that are three and four stories over. So im a little bit perplexed about some of the neighbor issues and complaints. It sounds to me like a lot of nimbism frankly. I support the project 100 . Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. My name is francisco da cos costa. You had the experts who are who have done a lot of good work all over the city and county of San Francisco. I happen to know all of them. I support this project. And supervisors, we need to learn to discern whats good and whats the shaft. Again i support this project. Clerk thank you, mr. Da costa. Operations, is there another caller on the line . Madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk okay. Thank you. Mr. President. President yee okay. Thank you for your comments. And others in the queue with Public Comments Public Comments are now closed. [gavel] okay. So the last portion of this will be the apellant to present a rebuttal argument. You have up to three minuting. Mrs. Smith. Yes, president yee. Thank you. I want to respond specifically to your and supervisor peskins points. The Planning Departments presentation makes apellants point. It happens after project approval. And d. B. I. Only relies on the Developers Documentation and doesnt conduct any original technical investigation when theres an exemption. With the ceqa document, the Planning Department would have to verify the Structural Integrity of the project and report back to you and the public. Thats the thats the difference between an exemption and a ceqa document. Frankly ms. Dwyer admitted that the most important project documents have not even yet developed. Youre asked to find no possibility of an Environmental Impact. And, you know, the truth, as we sit here today, the only project specific evidence in this record is from dr. Carp and the downslope neighbors. Dr. Carp has provided substantial evidence of a potential landslide impact, which shows there is a reasonable possibility of an Environmental Impact and the Planning Department has not. All they said is, yeah, well get to that once you approve the project. You know, therefore, the unusual circumstances here is the evidence from dr. Carp and the eyewitness accounts of neighbors of debrief slides down the clarendon avenue. That indicates the potential safety hazard. I ask that you grant the appeal so that the Planning Department prepares its own independent analysis of what the developer has done to date. And they look at potential landslide impacts. And thats all i have. Thank you very much for your time. President yee thank you for your comments. So let me say a few words. First, i want to thank all of the staff involved with the project and the appeal itself. Secondly, do want to thank the appellants and the project sponsor for making a time to engage in dialogue, leading up to this hearing. While there are some outstanding issues that are not related to this hearing today, i do appreciate the effort and hope that the parties can continue the conversations regardless of the outcome to date. While theres always a concern about safety, particularly in neighborhoods where there are known slope risks, this is not uncommon in San Francisco, as mentioned by several people today. Given scope the of the project and the information presented before me, i am inclined to affirm the Planning Departments decision for a categorical exemption. Part of this is recognizing that theres an existing building there. And again just replacing another building, its a little bigger, but certainly not outside the scope of what exists today. In totality, while i recognize the concerns from the neighbors about how the building has Design Elements that are really unique to the currently existing homes on that block, but thats not what i believe falls under ceqa evaluation. There are instances where historic aesthetic elements should be preserved and protected. But here i do not see those issues. This does not mean that there will not be additional work and evaluation done through the process with the department of building inspection. And anything under the slope and seismic protection protection act. So its my understanding that the project sponsor intends to move into the home. And i would like hope that everyone no wants to live in a safe, secure place for the benefits of everyone in the neighborhood. So if there are other if there are no further comments, i would like to make a motion to approve 65 and table items 66 and 67. Okay. I dont see anybody else well comments. So could i could i have a second . Supervisor peskin president yee, i will second that. I really enjoyed running the Planning Department and Legal Counsel through the paces. And i agree with you and will second the motion. President yee appreciate that. And so with no other comments, then madam clerk, could we have roll call. Clerk okay. On the motion to approve item 65 and table items 66 and 67. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, items 65 is approved and item 66 and 67 are tabled. [gavel] madam clerk, remind me, did i actually close the hearing . Clerk i believe you did. But in the event that im wrong, i would love for you to do that now. Just in case the hearing that we just had is now closed. Thank you. Okay. Lets move on to our next three p. M. Special order. Clerk okay. The Second Special order is 3 0. This is items 68, the public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a revised final mitigated negative declaration. Under the California Environmental quality act for the 3516 and 3526 folsom street project, issued march 25th, 2020. Item 69, is the motion to affirm the revised and mitigated negative declaration prepared by the Planning Department for the folsom street project. Item 70 conditionally reverses the preparation of the revise the mitigated negative declaration. Subject to the adoption of written findings of which item 71 are the subject matter of. This is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. President yee okay. Colleagues, before we begin, supervisor safai has requested to be excused from this proceedings. Can i have a motion to excuse supervisor safai . So moved. Second. President yee okay. Motion made and seconded. Supervisor safai, do you have something to say before we take a vote . Safai no. Thank you. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please roll call on this motion. Clerk on the motion to excuse supervisor safai from items 6871, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are ten ayes. President yee without oc, supervisor safai, youre excused. From items 6871. Okay. Colleagues, we have for us and the proposed project at 3516 and 3526 folsom street. This appeal is related to the Planning Department approve of the revised final negative declaration under the California Environmental quality act. After the hearing, the board will vote on whether to affirm or to reverse the revised mitigated negative declaration. Without objection, well proceed as follows. Up to ten minutes for the presentation by the appellant and their representative. Two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. And then up to ten minutes for the presentation from the city department. Up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representative. Two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project. And finally, up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. Colleagues, are there any objections with proceeding this way . Seeing no objection, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. [gavel] supervisor ronen, did you have any opening remarks you would like to make . Supervisor ronen no. Ill have questions throughout. Thank you. President yee okay. So seeing no other names on the roster to make comments, ill now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. You have up to ten minutes. Thank you. I do have a slide im sorry. I do have a slide id like to share. But it wont let me share. President yee are you kathleen . I am. I am. President yee okay. Clerk i believe my staff are just about to grant you permission to share. There we go. Got it. Okay. Its just taking a minute. Im sorry. I hope this isnt my time. Clerk i had not started the timer yet. Oh, good. My computer is taking i dont see it coming up. Can you see it now, you cant, right . President yee no. Im just going to go ahead without it. You have the slides there. Clerk through the president , we are cued up so that mr. Mrs. Pass is making the share presentation. Sorry, madam clerk. Clerk right. Thats fine. Just do it with his. Clerk okay. President yee go ahead. Okay. Good afternoon, president yee and members. Im kathy aingus. I represent the organization and speak on behalf of the neighbors. Two houses and a folsom street extension are proposed atop and adjacent to a massive 26inch pg e and similar to the one that caused the massive san bruno explosion in 2010. This is highly unusual and private development proposed on an extremely steep slope, over and adjacent to a major Gas Transmission pipeline, which is not covered by asphalt. Making this a highly dangerous situation as well. Since 21, planning has approved and had revoked or rescinded three different ceqa determinations because of deficiencies. Were displaced to find ourselves appealing deficient submission. It ignores critical information and does not apply recommendations from the pipelines and informed planning appliance. Or the motion in 17151 issued by the board. First of all, the motion required a Management Plan and the one submitted does not consider the street excavation details and special circumstances like an l, near the site and tree roots located dangerously near the pipeline. Second, the instead planning allowed the project sponsor to hire their own consultant to prepare the v. M. P. Third, the motion required a sitespecific emergency plan prepared to ensure adequate access to Emergency Response and the ability for a safe and timely evacuation. The r. S. M. D. Emergency plan is patently dangerous. It does not follow the recommendations and not sitespecific and does not take into account gas movement or access issues. It was stated by the project sponsor himself, rather than by a qualified emergency professional. Now im going to introduce you a Civil Engineer and hell speak to the technical issues. Dave. Yes. Good afternoon, president yee and board members. Thank you for granting a continuance to these proceedings to allow us to determine if pg e has remediated problems with previous analysis, they performed nearly kicking the can down the road. Unfortunately it is the latter. We have been provided 315 pages of documents that were purported to provide safetyrelated information, Technical Analysis and the new information that shows pg e arrived at their conclusions. However, were disappointed that pg e had taken had not taken this nearly onemonth opportunity to reevaluate their position and still concluded that requirements, construction methods and engineering review special considerations were not triggered in regard to the movement. The new documents and data to support this pg e position were not provided, had they been provided and had they been evaluated correctly, we believe their conclusion would be different. Based on our review, there are still Serious Problems associated with pipeline l19 and pg e has not properly evaluated them. Were concerned the ceqa process has not been allowed to flesh out the entire body of project details, rather it has been subverted to provide technical or piecemeal information in a haphazard manner. For example, the equipment for the work was not evaluated at all by pg e during its internal and external reviews, despite being listed as a potential piece of equipment and provided in documentation. Further, the documentation shows information provided to pg e structural expert was not sitespecific, pipelinespecific and was incomplete. For example, the pipe diameter is actually 26 inches, not 24 inches. Has a 90degree bend, is sloped at 35 degrees and is a weaker grade than what was analyzed by mr. Idinger. 30 was used. Fairly generic number how about, a sitespecific number for the area is. 744. Over twice the amount. If correct values had been used, then a higher risk would result in safety and would be compromised. Some potential street improvements, streetlights and proposed trees. Pg e could not have conducted an engineering review of the proposed street, improvements and driveways, because no plans existed for them. In addition, pg e indicated they had reviewed previous integrity assessments, all of which reflect that the pipeline is operating normally with no issues. However, there was no information provided in the record, showing a review or analysis of these data. But pg e refused to provide these records for independent review claiming the on maintenance activities. There was no legitimate reason to keep the information secret and withhold it from review. Moreover, the condition, depth and location of the pipeline can affect the design of roadways and driveways. Based on our analysis, Road Construction will add versely impact the adversely impact the radius around the pipeline with excessively high vibrations. Given the severity of a calamitous event, associated with the 26inch diameter pipeline failure, its insufficient. And a utility must be more than aligned it and safety with the primary concern. Despite all of the above, special considerations, including safety measures, were not triggered including Ground Movement from equipment vibration or seismic activity, according to pg e special considerations, term they use, have consistently not been triggered throughout the project, but indicated if the developer follows all requirements, the pipeline will continue to be safe. Pg e never disclosed that potential vibration damage from equipment with disaster consequences could result. Our independent experts found this to be the case from the same data set used by pg e. In summary, given the nature and location of pipeline l109, we are concerned that pg e has not properly evaluated the project, nor issued requirements commensurate with the level of risk the project presents. They have not refuted our expert conclusions and have not shown us evidence to support. Since pg e is still on probation for felony actions related to san bruno verification, not assumptions being a proper full and complete evaluation, must be performed. We do not see this in the record. This project still presents an unacceptable highrisk of environmental disaster, which has not been mitigated. And with that id like to turn it over to brian. Thank you. Can you hear me . Great. President yee and supervisors, im Ryan Patterson representing the neighbor marilyn. First, the private sponsor is trying to shut us out, saying our arguments here are outside the scope of the appeal. Thats wrong. The project description has changed in significant ways, including the slope, the pipeline location, and the Emergency Response and evacuation plans. These changes have significant effects and must analyzed. Second, theres serious errors and omission in the earlier vibration analysis, that have been carried over. This speaks to a direct violation of the boards notion. Your notion states, for this project, quote, in conducting any such additional environmental analysis, the Planning Department shall enlist a qualified expert to use all appropriate methods to determine the location, depth and condition of pipeline number 109 and the project area, and prepare vibration Management Plan for the project prior to the issuance of the revised Environmental Review document, end quote. Im going to try to share my jean now. My screen now. It will be just one moment. Can you see the power point slide . Yes. Hopefully so. And youll see on this slide, planning did not hire an independent consultant. The project sponsor used his own consulconsultant. David mueller is supposedly an independent consultant and theyre not allowed to testify in the hearings. If he were independent, he would not be allowed to testify today. He should not testify. But hes not independent, by means the board submission has been violated. Third, Legal Standard for an m. M. D. Appeal is a low threshold, thats a quote. The evidence need only support a fair argument with Significant Impacts or effects may occur. The appellant has clearly met the legal requirement, with numerous unrefuted expert reports in the record. Covering multiple disciplines i would add. Legally, the board is not suppose to clerk the speakers time has concluded. Thank you. May i finish my sentence . Clerk certainly. Thank you. The board is not suppose to weigh the two sides of evidence against each other and decide who has the better argument. But rather if there is any substantial evidence that there might be an unmitigated impact, the appeal must be granted. Thank you very much. President yee thank you. Okay. Now, madam clerk, we will ask for Public Comment. Clerk okay. Thank you, mr. President. I want to give the public the telephone number that they would use to call in. 415 6550001. 146 360 9063. Operation,s, were taking Public Comment from those in support of the folsom street appeal. There will an opportunity later in the hearing to speak in opposition. Lets hear from the first speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. This is mitchell. Im not in favor of the project. I think im in the correct queue, at this point . Clerk thats correct. Over here in bruno heights, were pretty prohousing. Bruno gateway, the park homes, market heights. Those are projects that we have not only supported, but actually fought for over here. Those were about 150 units and theres another a number of other examples. So were not but in this situation, what we have is its not like a couple of empty lots where they want to put up a house. Theres no lots at all. Theres no street. Its just a steep hillside and theres a 26inch gas pipeline underneath there. So we really need to figure out whats going on here and what, if anything, can be done. And we really need a full Environmental Review here. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the appellant or the appeal. Hello, caller. Welcome. Hi. Thank you for coordinating Public Comment. I have lived in bruno heights for 350 years, 50 years. Our concern with this project can be summed up in one word, safety. As you know, the development is proposed to be built in a steep hillside in which theres no road. Similar to the pipeline, that exploded in san bruno, additionally within the development plan, theres no sitespecific evacuation plan. But i have a couple new points i want to emphasize. Equally important as has been mentioned, is the emergency evacuation and chance of plan, written by the project sponsor, which allows pg e a threehour Response Time to a gas leak or accident. This is unacceptable. Such an accident occurred in bruno heights in december 2017, due to a significant gas leak, causing an explosion at a bruno heights home. Three hours to shut off the gas link is definite cause for concern about pg es accountability, its infrastructure, and Emergency Response. Heres another critical point. Considering Risk Assessment, it will take time and money to conduct an Environmental Impact report, in order to assess safety. But the amount of time and money to do that will be far, far less than the cost of a major accident, should the pipeline be damaged, leak or explode. So a Risk Assessment must be made by independent and qualified experts. Be assured again our objection to the project is the genuine danger. We strongly believe this is one of those cases that truly demands an Environmental Impact report. If there was ever a project that demanded an e. R. R. , this would be the one. Thanks very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller to hear from . Hi, are you there . Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Welcome. Thank you. My name is marilyn waterman. I want to thank supervisor ronen and the board for taking our concerns seriously. I want to discuss two conflicts of interest. Over a year ago, we were invited by planning to review a draft of this and we were surprised to see the boards 2017 motion mandating an independent qualified expert disregarded. Instead planning used the project sponsors own Engineering Firm for, quote, additional analysis and information and continued to admit problematic data from the analysis. We asked for clarifications of what independent meant, but we were met by a mode of awkward silence and squirming in chairs. Not until mayor breeds Office Supplied us with the protocols to ensure objectivity and Environmental Review, did we understand the reason for the squirming. Planning had not followed its own guidelines. Planning went on to submit the nonindependent plan to a, quote, independent peer reviewer, unquote. In an attempt to make it look like the b. O. S. , the board of supervisors motion was met. But by doing so, planning corrupted the integrity of the review. If planning were battling covid19 right now, wed all be on hydroxychloroquine. Thats the danger of a flawed study. We also we have also heard about the improper interference within the Fire Department regarding the approval of emergency evacuation and response plan. It is filled with inaccuracies as to what is a major gas leak. Its absolutely dangerous. Why would the Fire Department approve this plan . There appears a conflict of interest. We understand that fire captain joe driscoll is the brotherinlaw of the project sponsor james fogarty, one of the owners of the property. Mr. Driscoll has spoken vigorously in support of this project before the Planning Commission and his official capacity as a fire official. He exerted interference regarding this project. Fo we ask you to require a ful clerk thank you. Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Hello and welcome. Caller, are you on the line . Great. Welcome. Yeah. Clerk hello, caller. Your location should be quiet if your television is on. Please mute it. Just for your comments. [indiscernible] clerk okay. Hello, caller. You are unmuted. It is your turn to provide your public testimony. This is specifically on the folsom street appeal. Operations, im not sure if the individual can hear us. Miss angus, were you about to text that individual to let them know if youre familiar with their voice. Okay. Operations, lets see if we can go to the next caller and well circle back to this gentleman, when perhaps hell be ready in a moment. Hi, this is gail romano. Were in unprecedented times where things are happening beyond our control. The fact that we dont yet have a plan for how pg e will safeguard the pipeline during construction is within our control. Please deny the rfmd. 23 there were a company and a project we were working on, will anything that im doing or not doing turn this into frontpage news . And i have to have my c. E. O. Defend my actions. Ship something that mayor breed would have to go and defend, because we didnt take the action to figure it out before we went forward. Lets avoid what we can avoid. Please deny the rfmd. Thank you for your comments. Clerk operations, lets hear from the next caller. We believe theres about 11 callers in the queue. Were currently taking Public Comment on support of the appellant or the appeal of the folsom street project. Is there another caller on the line . Hello, caller. Welcome. Hi. Thank you. My name is alisha. Im adjacent to the property, the project is located on. Im calling, like many of my neighbors, and concerned residents, to request a full e. I. R. The project the documentation that has been provided through this project is incomplete. Its slash dash. I understand thats a qualification, not a quantification. I work in construction. I work in residential construction. Eye used to looking at legal documents, at construction documents, at supporting reports. What we have been provided is insufficient. I wouldnt mr. A house on this property without understanding it would be safe for the person who owns the property. And all of the surrounding residents and properties. And i would like to see a full e. I. R. With appropriate documentation and i would like the board of supervisors to act accordingly and thank you for the time. Clerk thank you for your comments. Okay, operations. Lets hear from the next caller. Were taking Public Comment on the folsom street appeal. If youre opposed to the appeal, well be taking a Public Comment in support of the project for those in a little bit of time. First, welcome, caller. Clerk can you hear me . Yes. Hello . We can hear you. I live about a block and a half away from the property in question. I really believe in this case we need to deny this rfmdand call for a full e. I. R. The ceqa requirements have not been met on this project. And mitigation in the event of accidents and also sitespecific management and Emergency Response plan. Its a very narrow corner. Its a steep slope. I cant help, you know, the explosion in san bruno and pg e has such a dreadful record of safety, because of its prioritization of shareholders over customer safety. And i just urgently ask the board of supervisors to deny the rfmd. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Hello. My name can you hear me . Clerk yes. Welcome. Yes. Okay. Hi. My name is linda ramey. I have lived on gate street in bruno heights for the past 40 years. Im very concerned about the proposed construction project on upper folsom. The Planning Department and the developers have shown a total lack of concern for the safety of the residents in the area. Many pipeline accidents have occurred at construction sites, where heavy equipment is operated near a pipeline. Dont we all still remember the catastrophe in san bruno. The pipeline that runs up the middle of our hill above folsom is similar in many respects to that pipeline. Four families, three on our block, have moved since this project was proposed, all because of fear of another such explosion. I do not have that option. And i dont put much trust in pg e, who two weeks here were out here on the hill. When i asked them, they were, quote, there to locate the pipeline. I want to ask them where are your records. Theyve been out here many times before. Why have they not been more concerned about a repeat of san bruno and the safety of our community and does the city really want to open itself up for liability in the event that such an explosion happens. We live close to the site and were not convinced that this project can proceed safely. Therefore, im asking that the rfmd be denied and replaced with a full e. I. R. Thank you very much for your time. Clerk thank you for your comments. We believe theres about nine individuals in the queue. Were taking currently Public Comment in support of the appeal or in support of the appellant. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Hi. Can you hear me . Clerk yes. Welcome. Hello. Hi. My name is anna ricker and, first, i want to thank the board of supervisors for carefully considering the safety concerns raised by the bruno neighbors. Its been a really long haul and we all realize that and appreciate it. At the same time, i continue to be qualified to realize that the Planning Department and pg e has consistently and systematically ignored the serious concerns to Public Safety has the project has raised. From the beginning, our concerns written off by the Planning Department and both pg e. I hope the outcome of todays meeting will be a full and Environmental Impact study. It will reassure all of us that construction on the property, over the pg e gas line, will be safe. Thank you so much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Hello. Clerk hello. Welcome. Hello. Great. My name is seth. Im a neighbor adjacent to the proposed project. I want to underline what all of my fellow neighbors have said. I will not repeat their points. There are lots of Construction Projects that happen in bruno heights. I think i have lived on this street for nearly 20 years. I can count dozens of projects, none of which i have ever entertained opposing or entertained concern about because they happened on existing properties. They were renewals. Im actually looking out the window right now at one that was a corner vacant lot, that got built on. And i think sometimes folks who oppose projects or ask for Environmental Reviews can sometimes be sort of dismissed as nimb is. In fact, im happy to see lots of projects in bruno, renewing our Housing Stock. Its wonderful. This project is different. Its a safety concern. And there needs to be independent Environmental Review fully, so we confident, all of you, as members of the board and thank you for your time. As well as all of the neighbors so that we can feel confident in our properties, in our community, in our children being safe from undue hazards. It is not acceptable to have any question about any of the potential safety risks. Thank you for your time and i do hope youll order a full Environmental Impact review. Clerk thank you for your comments. Okay, operations, lets hear from the next public caller who would like to speak in support of the appeal. Hello, my name is nancy. I live a across the street fm the project. I want to echo the caller before me. Its not about the construction. Theres been construction in the neighborhood since ive lived here since 2005, when i bought my condo from the hospital. Its been all very fine and good. But this is a completely different project. Its one of three major pipelines in San Francisco. And its supposed to be operated by a company a bankrupt company. And we are supposed to believe them and allow them to go to the developer to satisfy our concerns about safety. And that just does not seem appropriate in this situation. This is a completely different situation. Im hoping that the board of supervisors will require the full e. I. R. Thank you for your time. Clerk thanks for your comments. Operations, is there another caller . Hello. I live within about 150 yards of the proposed site. Like seth i wont try to repeat the points that have been so eloquently and wellstated by my neighbors. I add my voice to the request that the revised final negative declaration be revoked and add a full e. I. R. Be required. I think as custodians of our Public Safety, its incumbent upon the board to make that to draw the same conclusion. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. We think theres about three callers in the queue. Operations, lets hear from the next speaker in support of thement. Of thement. Pla of the appellant. Hi, can you hear me . I speak for my wife gail and myself. We wish to be on the record that we request the relocation of the rfmd and support the request for an e. I. R. Weve lived in our house at 3574 folsom street since 1981. And as a couple since 1986, respectively. Our home is directly down wind of and 25 feet away from a potential gas explosion and or construction accident. We are fearful. [ please stand by ] have never tested the plan on the site, never interviewed the neighbor, never assessed the plans practicality or feasibility with us. Were completely in the dark in emergency evacuations. Finally, their Response Time of three hours after an accident is a joke, but its a dangerous and cruel one, just like thethes thesthese these supposed plans. We are in full agreement thank you to the caller for your comments. There are about five speakers in the queue, about 32 listeners if you are interested in making Public Comment in support of the appeal, now is your opportunity to do so. There are five in the queue. If it remains, then we will take this out to the very end. Lets hear from the next caller please. Hello . Hello, welcome. Thank you. My name is susan and i am calling because i also agree with all the previous callers that there needs to be a full e. I. R. I dont live in the neighborhood, but i am a San Francisco resident and i have a friend in the neighborhood and what ive been hearing from her, im just appalled as far as the lack of safety. My main concerns are i have no confidence in p. G. E. They have been negligent with explosions that impacted not just the immediate residents, but the entire city. They appeared to have been given lots of leeway in this case and power, and that doesnt seem appropriate. Also the vibration management and the Emergency Response plans are definitely inadequate and they didnt even meet what the board itself asked them to do. They dont meet the equal law as well. I feel that the neighbors are at risk and they had to hire people out of their own dime to provide data because thats the only way they could get any attention. I worry about, you know, that pipeline and potentially catastrophic accident could happen. Theres one more thing i was trying to remember oh, how are the elderly and disabled residents going to evacuate because that is not well planned out and im very concerned for those people. So, any way please, please dont let this be a case where the hearing is just a mere formality to push through something thats really unsafe. So, thank you very much. Byebye. Thank you for your comments. Next caller please. Hi, my name is Pauline Marshall and i lived here for 34 years. I live on the north, not the south, but i walk by this area everyday walking my dog, so im very familiar with this site. I urge you to revoke the negative declaration and to require that a full e. I. R. Be prepared for this project. We are talking about construction above and in close proximity to a 26inch High Pressure pipeline. A mitigated deck is not appropriate if there is a fair argument that there might be an unmitigated impact. The current mitigated deck does not include an analysis of the risk during the construction of the project and construction of public street improvements necessary to access the area for the housing unit. The risk of impacting the pipeline is especially high during construction when there is heavy equipment excavating the steep slopes in this area, yet the plans for the proposed street improvements, some of which is constructed within 10 feet of this pipeline had not been prepared, provided, or analyzed. So subsequentlconsequently, ther argument that it may have a substantial effect on the environment. It has the potential to cause an explosion and fire that could kill people. That is without a doubt a substantial effect on the environment requiring Environmental Review. I will add that in no way am i opposed to housing in my neighborhood. I just want it to be safe housing and doesnt pose a risk to the neighbors. Please require a full e. I. R. For this project. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller please. Hi, my name is barbara and i ask how can it be finalized if it could trigger the hazard remain unexamined or unresolved. This is not a garden variety Gas Transmission pipeline, yet it continues to be treated as such. The board calls for an expert to use all appropriate methods to include conditions of 109 and prepare a vibration Management Plan. Two of the four were specifically conducted in response to the boards motion but they must be discounted on the basis that they do not take into account the location, depth, and location of 109. One of these two is the independent expert enlisted by planning. He produced a memo which makes clear that he only Peer Reviewed the existing plan and did not independently determine anything to do with line 109 itself. The other is the Third Party Consultant who is asked only to answer the question, the velocity of 2 inches per second to the criteria. Again, this consultant did not take into account anything having to do with line 109. He explicitly states that pg e did not provide him with any designs or drawings or details of the pipeline. He states a series of assumptions, none of them matching the characteristics of line 109. Most importantly, the most dangerous characteristic of 1089 is the slope and 90 degree bend has not yet been taken into account by any of the project sponsors planning or pg e reviewers. The boards motion has not been satisfied and therefore an e. I. R. Is necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. We have two more callers in the queue. Operations lets hear from the next caller. [inaudible] i am really concerned about this project because of the gas pipeline. As everybody has echoed in this hearing, to me its like youre a life guard sitting on chair and you see someone that is to dive head first into a pool. They dont know how deep that pool is. What would you do . Would you say go ahead dive or say let me check that pool and see how deep it is before you dive head first into it . So, i mean thats basically the case we have here. We dont know what this pipeline is or how deep it is or the state of it. I would say you should have a full e. I. R. Before this is approved. I hope you do the right thing. Its the logical thing to do and im not sure why you havent done it at this point. It should be done. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller please. Hi, i live in San Francisco and im sure if i lost my opportunity to comment on the Police Budget this year, but i am calling to demand that maam, im going to stop your time right there. We are not taking general Public Comment additionally and most importantly the Public Comment period for Public Comment on the budget has also passed. So that is not before the board today and it is not eligible content for you. If you press star 3, that will put you right back into line and we will be taking general Public Comment later on in the meeting. Okay. So, we do hope you stick around and provide us your comment at that appropriate time. Operations, is there another caller on the queue on behalf of the appellant . Hi, my name is mark, i live on gate street, one block over from the project. For the past 30 years, ive been working in corporate financing, reviewing various projects, looking at cost benefit risk analyses. Its clear, two new homes, 40,000 a year and additional property taxes. The risk however is an explosion, destruction of tens of millions of dollars worth of property, loss of life and pipe that is aging, that has not been visually inspected in many years and if i were looking at this project, given the size of the risk versus the benefits, i would not leave any stone unturned. Many people mentioned insufficient studies, questionable statements or questions on people who are doing the studies, and i would think we would want to look at all of that before taking a risk of this level. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. Operations, are there any other callers on behalf of the appellant . Yes. Great, welcome. Hi, my name is mare meredith. I just wanted to make clear that theres been two gas pipeline explosions since the board of supervisors in 2017 motion was passed. One in bruno bruno heights that because of pg e negligence and another from a backhoe slip. The results were devastating. Imagine what would happen on a 26inch pipeline. The Response Time of three hours was criticized by supervisors but this is what pg e has approved here. Other concerns were also presented in the hearing and they continue to be concerns that this project presents. San francisco Fire Department battalion chief rex says the gas leaks during construction is not uncommon, yet the Emergency Response and evacuation plan is riddled with misinformation on what to do during a gas leak. Supervisor ronen, thank you for saying this. It revives my concern about pg es account bt. Th accountability. We urge you to uphold the letter and spirit of what you said during that hearing and require a full e. I. R. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Operations, are there any other callers on the line who are in support of the appellant . Hello. My name is sam, im a longterm laborer. I have two grandchildren with their dog reggie who use to play where the pipeline runs. I urge the board to conduct an e. I. R. Anxiety runs deep in our community. A quick petition we circulated that is in your files got 120 signers in one afternoon a couple years ago. So thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Operations, are there any other callers on the line in support of the appellant . Madam clerk, that complete it is queue. Thank you operations, mr. President. Im sorry mr. President , youre muted. Thank you for the comments and since there are no other speakers, i will close Public Comment sorry. I have one quick question when youre ready. Im going to close Public Comment now. [gavel] supervisor ronen. Yes, one quick question. Can you explain exactly why you dont consider paul donovan independent . Are you addressing the question to someone . Sure, i can answer that question. Because this is the project sponsors own expert. So they have their consultant report for the original. The board of supervisors revoked that and required planning to obtain an independent consultant. So they can use their own consultant again, supposedly the independent consultant that is brought in, hired by the project sponsor was not provided full information and there are a number of additional problems with that. And the person youre talking about is paul donovan, who completed the management report. There are two consultants, neither of which is independent. So its the consultant that conducted the report and the plan, neither which was independent. Okay, ill have more questions for planning. Thank you. Thank you. Now i guess the Planning Department, if you would like to make a presentation, then you have up to 10 minutes. Thank you, yes. Actually i have a presentation i like to share my screen for. Hopefully you can grant me permission for that. Okay, can everyone see the window . Its dark, black. Oh, okay. Apologies. Lets try this again here. Mr. President , its unclear to me if the gentleman gave us his presentation in advance. You were showing it originally and then your screen went off. Let me try it again. We see it now. Great. Okay. You can go ahead. Thank you. Im lisa gibson. Can you hear me . Yes. And josh, if you could please make the presentation full screen. First, i like to begin by acknowledging the fears that have been expressed by the appellant and callers regarding safety. I would like to reflect the comments on a mistrust in pg e and city government. I understand how hard it must be to have those feelings on top of Everything Else that we have to be fearful about in these times of pandemic, fires, protests, and more. How does the Planning Department address this for a two dwelling unit Housing Project . We do that by doing our Due Diligence as environmental professionals to sort through the volume of data and find whats relevant and to present the facts in an honest and objective manner. That includes respectfully pointing out the inaccurate statements and unsubstantiated comments made in support of the appeal. Next slide, so what are the facts regarding the project . Were talking about two proposed Single Family homes, and the expansion of fulsome street. The facts about the site. This is a site like countless others is in proximity to a pg e pipeline. There are currently 20 active planning applications nearby pg e pipelines and located on 25 slope or fwragreater. The challenges posed by the site can be solved. Construction happens all the time and there are ways to do so safely. We have studied the heck out of this project. 400 hours worth of study on this alone, starting with the project application, filing in 2013. Next slide. Here we are today with this appeal. What are the facts about the permissible grounds for an appeal. Were here on the appeal of a document that this body directed us to appeal on a prior one we prepared. Motion and 17152 with specific findings on what we needed to do to correct the deficiencies in our report. The findings instructed us to conduct additional analysis regarding construction related impacts on the pipeline and to prepare more robust mitt gaze. We did as directed. To the letter of the findings exhausti exhaustively. The revised included a robust Management Plan prepared by professionals and Peer Reviewed to ensure that construction generated vibration will remain at safe levels and the pipeline will not be compromised. The report contains all the required information and was reviewed by the agency, named by the board. The revised document includes a Site Specific Emergency Response and evacuation plan, meeting the boards requirements. San francisco fire and pg e have reviewed the project and reaffirmed their approval for the plan for this project. The board noted that their findings on the document, that the document was adequate. Issues that go beyond the board findings are not on the table today. As for the speculation about what pg e might or might not do, much as we would wish otherwise, we dont have the ability to regulate pg e. Thats the job of the state. The vibration Management Plan has safeguards to ensure that construction will stop and not be permitted to continue if vibration levels exceed specified thresholds or for some reason that pg e doesnt show up. If they dont show up, work doesnt continue. Other entities will be responsible for ongoing vibration monitoring and other actions that will keep the public safe, not pg e. Finally i will note that while our Environmental Review is complete, or we certainly hope so after today, that does not mean the city is done with the processing of this project. Before construction starts as part of the routine permit process, other departments such as the Fire Department will be conducting their own evaluations of the project and this is on top of the robust safety Protection Measures crafted specifically for this project. Now my colleague josh polluck will explain further. Thank you. Thank you lisa. Im the senior planner with the Planning Department. The board directed the department to undertake further analysis with respect to the specific issue of potential vibration impact from project construction. The revised environmental document includes information about the location and condition of the pipeline. The pipelines daylight is inspected as you can see in the picture from the project site. They demonstrated that the pipeline is in good condition. The revised environmental document also documents the location of a pipeline updated engineering drawing. The revised environmental document includes a vibration document plan, which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and pg e and includes an Emergency Response and evacuation, which was approved by the Planning Department, the San Francisco Fire Department, and pg e. The revised document incorporates all recommendations from both plans of the mitigation measure. The vibration Management Plan is a protective assumption to prevent impact to the pipeline during construction. The vibration threshold is highly safety protective because it would shut down Construction Activity if vibration reached a level six times below that which could damage the pipeline. The vibration threshold is 2 inches per second, with 12 inches per second is what could cause damage to the pipeline. Thats a factor safety of 6. This is if we knew an elevator could safely carry 12 people but the capacity was limited to 2 people to be extra safe. A second qualified independent engineer reviewed and confirmed that the plan is accurate, consistent with common engineering practice and included a safety factor of 6. Pg e staff reviewed a vibration threshold. In total, four separate engineers have reviewed and affirmed that the vibration threshold is appropriate. No substantial evidence has been presented that demonstrations that the vibration threshold that would be used during project construction is not appropriate and does not include safety assumption. They reviewed the plan or independent for todays hearing and i am here to answer questions. Prior to construction of the project, they will be required to meet with the department of public works, and the San Francisco Fire Department. The vibration monitoring equipment will be tested and pg e staff will be notified. Vibration monitors will be buried the depth of the pipeline, 6 inches away from the pipeline itself. The vibration Management Plan establishes that if vibration levels exceed the threshold of 2 inches per second and and i alert will be transmitted and transmission would immediately stop and prevent impact of the pipeline. For any utility work, the pg e would be required to be on site. Construction stops at any time due to vibration levels. Work would only resume with pg e authorization. These are part of the mitigation measures for the project sponsors agreed to. Theyre enforceable. Mr. Pollock, can i just ask you a quick question to the chair about that last slide. Sure. Through the president and then supervisor ronen, and then well pause his time. If thats okay mr. President. I didnt want to lose the thought. So how who enforces that pg e has to be there when they are constructing within 10 feet of the pipeline . Thats a great question. So pg e had reviewed the plan and agreed to the stipulations in the plan. So, they are required to be there for pipeline construction. Since the product sponsor agreed to these measures its legally responsible, construction would not be able to continue without pg e presence on the site within 10 feet of the pipeline. Okay, so its the project sponsors responsibility then to make sure that pg e is there. I have to say unfortunately i share the appellant distrust of pg e. I think we all do because their actions that were criminal as a matter of fact and many other circumstances. So, im glad that pg e has agreed to be there but i want to understand who is going to make sure theyre there and enforce these requirements. Thats on the project sponsor. Well, i guess i would add to that. Also, you know, if for whatever reason you know, requirements and mitigation measures arent being met, that would be an issue also for planning enforcement will follow up on. Okay, so is that how an agreed party would remedy, if they would have to watch the construction happen believes that they are within 10 inches of a pipe and call the Planning Department and then the Planning Department comes out to review . Is that how it would go down in real life . I think the project sponsor can see for themselves in terms of following the mitigation measures. Basically theyre legally bound to meet those requirements and pg e has requires for work within the pipeline so they also have a legal requirement to be there in terms of supervising that work. So worstcase scenario that were all hoping and planning to never happen. If the pipeline explodes and pg e wasnt there, maybe this is a question for the City Attorney. Are they liable for all the damage . Yeah, i guess im going to step back. This is something we addressed in our appeal response. You know, our role as environmental planners to describe Environmental Impacts. So i think if were in a position of talking of a potential accident, we want these mitigation measures put in place to reduce that potential. If an incident were to occur, i think it would probably take further determination about who is responsible for the specifics of that. I understand, but its my job to review and make sure that these mitigations are adequate. In order to understand if theyre adequate, i have to understand how theyre going to be enforced. Thats what im trying to understand right now. Im just trying to understand how, you know, how active who are the active participants in the city that will be ensuring that these mitigation requirements are actually pir performed. I believe the City Attorney is on and i like to defer for her to answer that question. Im sorry to stop your presentation midway. Thank you. Through the president , supervisor youre posing a hypothetical that is missing some of the underlying facts. I cant really answer who will be liable unless we knew exactly what the circumstances were. I decent think at this point well heres my hypothetical. The circumstances is that the project sponsor is constructing within 10 feet of the pipeline and pg e is not there as required to be there and something happens. Is pg e responsible for what happened because they agreed to be there every time there is construction within 10 feet of the pipeline. I would need to know how we are legally bound all these parties to their agreement. My expectation is that if the city was involved in suing them, then all likelihood they would work out i dont have an answer for you at the moment. So when planning says that pg e agreed to be there on site for all construction within 10 feet of the pipeline, we dont know as a city how that promise has been made or that agreement has been made. I think planning staff may be able to tell you exactly what their conversations with pg e were. I have not been involved in drafting the agreements with pg e. I mean sadly, i dont even think we would be here if pg e wasnt the actor that so many of us distrust because of their criminal actions involving similar type pipelines in other places in california. It is relevant to me if they are going to abide by the measures they agreed to. I want to know from the city how were going to keep them to their word here and make sure theyre here. Ill ask the project sponsor this question as well. The fact that it doesnt make me feel any better that pg e wont share many of the documents with the city that show the safety of the pipeline because they say theyre regulated by not the city and we have to trust them. I would just love to know that we can count on these mitigation measures that were putting forth here. Thats what i want assurance of. Sure, and if i could add one more helpful thought, which might give you a little more comfort. Both d. B. I. And planning have enforcement authorities when project sponsors are not complying with the terms of their permits under various circumstances, either at the Billing Department or the Planning Department do have enforcement authorities. So d. B. I. For example could issue a stop work order if they went out to inspect and determine that pg e was not on site as required. There are other opportunities for the city departments to step in and identify the problem of pg e not keeping its word or not requiring them to keep their word, if you will. Okay, and just to understand how that would work in real life, a neighbor would have to notice that they seem to be constructing awfully close. The neighbor has to know where the pipeline is, notice that they were constructing close to it, call the city, and then the city could come out and stop the construction. I just want to understand really how this works. Sure, thats one way it could work. Another way that it could work is that city Decision Makers in the Planning Department are on the board could identify the various accidedepartments that involved that this needs some extra oversight and that inspectors are keeping an eye on the property. So in a project like this, it would not be a surprise to me if this project got more inspections than a two House Construction project. That would be something that needs to be worked out with d. B. I. And we when deciding this appeal today, could we include that as a condition . Its complicated. Yeah, i need to think about that one a little bit. Sorry, i dont have a direct answer for you. We can move on. Sorry. Can i add something. Yeah, of course. So part of it is that i think supervisor ronen, i think i know what youre saying. Is it possible for the developer to mark where the pipeline is so that people know and see it. Its one way to help the public, help monitor this. Im just wondering, im just thinking out loud. Once again, that would be a condition that i think would be appropriate for the board to adhere, some kind of marking of the vicinity of the pipeline, which would facilitate neighbor complaints, certainly. Okay. Go ahead and continue. Thank you mr. President. I also wanted to add to that discussion as part of the Emergency Response and evacuation plan for the preconstruction meeting. The utilities would be marked in the work area. Thats part of the Emergency Response plan. So, in conclusion, the Planning Department has met the requirements and 17152 regarding a preparation of the revised environmental document. The appellant has not provided substanti substantial argument otherwise. This includes the appeal letters, and the testimony we heard today. For these reasons and those details in the appeal response, we recommend that the board uphold the Planning Departments adoption around the negative declaration as meeting the requirements of motion m17152 and deny the appeal. This concludes my presentation. Planning staff is available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Supervisor ronen, do you have anymore questions . I do have a few more questions. Thank you so much. So in response to my question to pg e about the operational and maintenance history of the pipeline and we talked about this a little bit. Pg e provided confirmation of performing aerial controls, surveys, protection and infection systems, and they all point to the pipelines acceptable conditions and of course the additional unetarthig portions of the pipeline that was done in response of our previous motion. That was the project sponsor. Then they noted that they cannot provide the documentation for these inspections to us because they contain confidential information. Im just wondering if planning is concerned at all that the information hasnt been presented to us and why and if not, why not. Thank you for the question. So, yeah, in evaluating the condition of a pipeline we received the initial information from pg e, the sponsor, and pg e staff with public works permit and activated the pipeline to verify the condition. We did receive Additional Information about the condition of the pipeline. The engineering review that was done by looked at vibrational impact of construction on the pipeline and analyzed that and they were able to perform the engineering analysis with the information that they had and similarly the independent expert who reviewed and confirmed their analysis of the vibrational impact was able to also look at the information that had been presented by pg e about the pipeline to look at the analysis of the construction impacts on the pipeline. Sorry, so the engineers were able to review additional materials that the Planning Department was not able to review that pg e gave them access to . No, that was unclear. The information that we had been provided from pg e was adequate for those engineers to conduct their independent review. I understand, thats their opinion. Yeah. Thats why it doesnt bother you that pg e hasnt shared these additional reports that relate to their inspection of the conditions of the pipeline. Is that right . Yeah, i mean im not a pipeline engineer. If i ever see that information, im not sure that i would be able to interpret it necessarily. So we are relying on the independent Expert Opinion that were provided about the analysis that relate to that. Okay. And pg e removed a 30 foot tree that had been allowed to grow in close proximity to the pipeline, would the daylighting of the pipeline done at the particular location where the tree was to determine if the roots caused any damage . Thats a great question. So my understanding, because i wasnt physically present there. The tree that was located and removed, adjacent to bruno heights boulevard, outside of the project site. We did receive Additional Information from pg e regarding their removal of the tree and their considerations in removing it and also their practice of leaving the roots in the ground as part of the tree removal. Okay, ill ask that question as well to the project sponsor. Then finally you know, there was a site permit application to build on these parcels in december of 2003 that was disapproved by planning. Im wondering if you can speak to that and why was it disapproved then and what is different now. Absolutely. So, our understanding is that the prior project sponsor had filed an application in 2002 for a very similar project to this one. The sponsor was unresponsive to the concerns and basically didnt provide planning information to the comments and concerns about the project. So the project was canceled for lack of activity. The prior project shows that its canceled. We understand that in recording by the department of inspections, there is a line that was filled out by the Central Permit Bureau that said the project was disapproved. We believe thats a clerical error. There was no hearing to our understanding. Also i just wanted to refer to our current planner on the project because i believe hes familiar with the history of the project site. I think youre on mute. I cant hear you. Youre still muted. Yeah, i guess i could just add to that, just to summarize that its our understanding that the prior sponsor you know, it was canceled for nonresponsiveness. There was a prior discretionary review i know was never heard. It documents concerns with the nature of a project and not anything related to this current condition about the condition of the pipeline. Okay. Thank you. Thats all the questions i have. Thank you. Thank you. Hang in there. There might be other questions. Lets see, now its time for the project sponsor to present. You have 10 minutes or your representative. Hello, im one of the project sponsors. Hello. You can go ahead. Okay. Hi my name is anna, my husband and i are the owners of the residential lot of folsome. Seven years ago we purchased that lot with our savings with a dream of building a home for our family. We both always worked full time. I worked for others in the field of architecture my entire life. It was my dream to be able to work on something for ourselves, for our family. At the time our two children were 10 and 8 years old. Our children have been and always been in the San Francisco public schools, schools in which we actively participated, volunteering, organizing, giving our personal time, work, and money. I was on the middle schools t t. S. A. Board. I did this because i believe in the importance of participation in the public realm for the greater good. In seven years, weve been blocked over and again despite addressing valid concerns in good faith, with qualified independent and environmental and professional expertise. We have been put through the ringer. I now have a 17yearold and 15yearold, and i respectfully ask this plea of you, may it please be allowed to move forward with making our home. Thank you. My turn. Good afternoon board members, i am fabian, annas husband and project sponsor for the project. We were planning to build our house at 3516folsome. We have fought this project for 6. 5 years, filing 19 yards, dragging us through seven commission hearings. We waited until the last minute before their hearings to make numerous misleading or incorrect claims. One of the latest claims is that this specific site is considered to be a high consequence area by the department of transportation. The project should be denied. They avoided defining what a high consequence area is. Er according to the u. S. Department of transportation, any urbanized area is considered an h. D. A. Its not just this site, but all of San Francisco. It doesnt mean this area cannot or should not be built. What this means is that pipeline appraisers are required to devote additional focus to ensure the location of the pipeline. Vibration waters would have to be used to pave the road. They claim that the road would require foundation. They made so many misleading or incorrect statements, i dont have time to go over them. Theyre all false. None of them are true. With the Planning Department, we have addressed each and every one of them. Even then, even if they were valid claims, the Management Plan addresses all the issues. If the vibration levels go over 2inch per second. [inaudible] pg e will have an on site expe expecter to see its within 10 feet of the pipeline. We will do everything in our power to avoid having to sub the work. We will be endearing to these conservative and recommending protocols at all times. Three this five year process, we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to do studies to prepare these documents to defend ourselves. We provided all the information we were asked for, and there is not one valid reason to deny this project. We urge you to support this project and deny this appeal. I want to thank the Planning Department, supervisor ronen, and amy and everyone involved in helping us get through. Thank you for your time and consideration. I might add that i have reviewed in response to the questions to supervisor ronen part of the preconstruction process is to fence the pipeline 10 feet on each side to make sure there is no work done without supervision of pg e. So clearly prior to construction, the area will be fenced to avoid any problems. Thank you and i pass the speech to our lawyer charles. Thank you. Yes, good afternoon president yee, members of the board. Im charles, on behalf of the project sponsors. You know, im going to talk quickly here because i dont have a lot of time. Without doubt, these applications to build two Single Family homes have sparked much controversy and concern. The concerns over Public Safety is very legitimate, the speculation has been marred by inaccuracies. In face of so much paper, last minute questions raised and answers provided, i think its important for the board to focus on the precise legal issues before you today. First, does the revised satisfy the motion m17152 and whether substantial evidence in the record create as fair argument that the monitoring plan and the Emergency Response and i evacuation plan would cause a Significant Impact on the environment. We agree with the staff recommendation that the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no. Supervisor ronen, almost three years ago to the day i stood before you on the board in better times, when we could do such things and acknowledge your concerns about the safety of your neighborhood, your constituents, and the city and indicated that the project sponsor shared your concerns when you worked with planning in your office to address those issues. Now after much effort, time, and great expense, we believe that the potential safety impacts have been adequately addressed in the revised, mitigated deck. Most of the information presentpresen presented by the appellants is outside the scope of the motion because it relies on information previously reported by the board and is outside the scope of the boards review pursuant to the administrative code that has been revised by the Planning Department. As for new information related to the revisions, we believe that its been adequately addressed by the Planning Department, Fire Department, and the pg e. Theres been a lot of inaccuracies. I heard some more today. There hasnt been any major changes in this project since 2017. A parking space has been removed from each building. Pg e has responded to issues of the tracked vehicles, and spoken about the very strict standards for vibration, 2 inches per second, six times stronger than most people use. 30 years ago the California Supreme Court stated that they must not be allowed to subvert it into an instruction for the oppression and delay of social, economic and recreational advancement. Also, opponents can think of some additional studies to be conducted. Many people called for an e. I. R. There is no record that would indicate that the vibration monitoring plan would cause a significant effect. Those are the issues in front of you today. An e. I. R. , preparation of an e. I. R. Would do nothing but further delay this project and cost more money. The only thing is construction vibration and its been addressed in noi3, in the deck. Supervisor ronen, in response to a couple of your questions, pg e regulations do require that someone be on site when all work within 10 feet of the pipeline. That will be enforced by planning as part of the mitigation measure, just like any other mitigation measure. It can be enforced by dbi and the street extension by the department of public works. So in terms of removal, pg e responded to that issue and that and the band in this pipeline are 55 or 60 feet away from the project site. So, in closing i would like to say that you approve to let these projects go forward. I and the project sponsor are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you supervisor. Thank you president yee. Thank you for the presentation. I wanted to hear more about the exploratory investigation of where you daylighted the pipeline in two places. I want to hear how the decisions were made about the adequate number of potholes, again, what sections to expose. Did they extend the entire length of the roadway or just in frnt of the housing parcel and if you can describe that project, who was there, what the findings were and how, if at all these findings informed the vibration Management Plan and if you could refer to the tree that i spoke about with planning as well. Skbl. Supervisor ronen could you describe again the decision like, where the two potholes were dug, why you chose those two . One was giving us the end of the street, the upper end of the street, and the other one was giving us kind of a low point on where the road was lumping up, so we figured that the pipeline is fairly straight, and that those two points face on what pg es instruction would give us, the pipeline. And the pipeline was surveyed by an additional surveyor, and a response was done. Supervisor ronen okay. Okay. And who prepared the initial response and evacuation plan . We worked with the Fire Department to prepare that. We tried many, many times to get in contact with the San Francisco department of emergency. I was sent hundreds of emails, i called and left messages. I went there personally many times, never got a call return. I would have liked to have gotten their input, but i wasnt able to. Pg e indicated they had a very robust evacuation plan thats being developed with sfdem and the sf Fire Department, but theyre not allowed to share that department. So i ran everything back and forth with pg e, and i was able to get as much information as possible to prepare the plan. Supervisor ronen okay. And