With San Francisco public works. The guidelines are as follows. Turn off or silence all phones or other Electronic Devices to it will not disturb the proceedings. Each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or threeminute period. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and their rebuttal. Time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or a large number of people. Our legal clerk will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Votes are required to grant an appeal or rehearing request and to modify a permit or other city determination. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please email staff. Regarding Public Access and participation, its very important to the board and every effort has been made to replicate the inperson hearing process to enable Public Participation sf gov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. To watch the hearing on tv, go to sf gov tv, cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast from fridays at 4 p. M. On channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sf gov. Org boa, and Public Comment can be provided by telephone. That phone number is being broadcast and streamed on the sf gov tv banner with access instructions. So the number you call is 8335480276. Its a toll free number. You enter the id8956349497. When you call in, you listen for the Public Comment portion of your item to be called and dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. Please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. Therefore, if you do call in, please turn the volume on your tv or computer so it wont interfere with the meeting. You can participate via computers. We now have a webinar function, so if you want to we posted a link on our website. You can join the meeting, and when its your turn to speak, we have the ability to enable the video for you. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who attend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish to give your board testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Okay, thank you. If you are a participant in a [indiscernible] turn off your video camera. So we are now moving on to let me see. One moment. Okay, we are now moving on to item no. 1. This is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction, but that is not on tonights calendar. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . I dont see any attendees. I dont see any callers. Lets see if anyone is present who joined by the link. No one has raised their hand. We will move on to item no. 2, commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . No. Okay, let me just doublecheck. Want to make sure were not missing anybody. I dont see any hands raised, so we will move on to item no. 3, commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the june 3, 2020 meeting. Any changes or deletions to the minutes . No. Im sorry, who made that motion . Vicepresident honda. Okay, we have a motion from vicepresident honda to adopt those minutes. On that motion, president lazarus . Aye. Commissioner tanner . Aye. Commissioner swigs . Aye. Going back in time. Thank you. The minutes are adopted 40. We are now moving on to item no. 4. This is a rehearing request for appeal no. 20033, subject property at 1001 fortureo avenue and 23rd street frontage. The appellant is requesting a rehearing of appeal no. 20033. Decided may 27, 2020. At that time, upon motion by vicepresident honda, the board voted 40 to recused to deny the appeal and uphold the order on the basis that it was properly issued. The permit holder is ucsf and and two significant trees on the vermont street frontage without replacement. These trees are not replaceable due to the construction of a new research and Academic Building and to access driveways. However, in lieu fees shall be paid. Mr. Seguin, you have three minutes. Okay, i just need to share my screen here. Im going to just play a video. If you dont hear the sound from the video, we havent tested this, so could you just let me know . Yes, thank you. Okay. Sharing the video and playing now. 1001 avenue is a corner property. Per board rules occupants of all opposite block faces were to be notified via u. S. Mail. No occupants received this notification. This unjustly suppressed Public Comment. That prompted this survey. Board president lazarus indicates on her form 700 she receives in excess of 100,000 from San FranciscoGeneral Hospital foundation. The wayback machine indicates until monday of this week she was listed as executive staff. Until being replaced on june 15, 2020. The Foundation Supports the hospital. The project is on Hospital Property and in the brief and the hearing i directly referenced the foundations building which has a mural peeling led paint into a public park. The attorney general has been clear nonprofits are considered remote interests and the board member must disclose and abstain. The president s vote is not relevant. Her participation in the hearing rendered the hearing invalid. The mayors Emergency Declaration has suspended the tenday delivery requirements of the sunshine ordinance. Some documents relevant to the hearing were delayed. An email from chris buck of urban forestry states the frontage for the entire parcel must be used for calculating replacement trees. As in his words, how we handle similar cases. And indicates this requires planting 160 trees, not 16 trees the project has listed. Most importantly are the 100 plans. The dates indicate the plans were 100 complete in october. The project filed their eir addendum in november. This shows the project was fully aware of the change in building position before filing the addendum but failed to disclose that change in the addendum as they were required to do. This change in position is causing multiple negative impacts, including the removal of this grove of trees. This is not their property. This property is being leased from the city. This lease is contingent on a valid eir. This is a complicated scenario. At the previous hearing commissioner swig asked [indiscernible]. Well remove. So whos going to give me an answer . What city agency San Francisco defines that person as the Environmental Review officer. Im told her name is lisa gibson. It sets a terrible precedent to have questions remain unanswered and rulings based on supposition. I am requesting a rehearing with the officer present to provide unbiassed answers to the boards questions. Okay. Thank you, mr. Seguin. Okay, we will now hear from the attorney for ucsf. Is ms. Caroline lee present . Actually, its charles alston, director rosenberg, and good evening president and members of the board. [indiscernible] the regent of the university of california. We submitted a brief last week, covered all the issues that were raised by the appellant in the request for rehearing. We believe that the request should be denied because it doesnt meet the boards standards for a rehearing. The appellant has failed to carry his burden in showing that new or different material facts or circumstances have arisen since the last hearing, which had been known on may 27. Im sorry, we cant hear you. Mr. Olsen . Yeah, can you stop the time, please . I did. Thank you. Mr. Olsen, mr. Olsen, we cant hear you. Mr. Olsen . I dont know, ms. Lee, do you have a way of communicating with him, maybe give him a call . I can certainly help do that. Okay, im not sure im not sure if its just a technical difficulty. I think he was sharing a link with someone and that could be a problem too. Okay, well, one moment. Mr. Olsen . Okay. Charles, we cant hear you. Okay. Mr. Olsen, can you hear me . Okay. Lets try and give him a call. Can you hear me . I think he muted himself, to be honest. Yeah. I think he did too. Ms. Lee, are you able to call him . I was not able to reach charles. Is there theres [indiscernible] i dont know which one. Right, i sent invitations to each individual person. So why dont you unmute all the angela donahues and then well see what happens, if you can. If not he can call okay, they are all unmuted now. Okay, mr. Olsen . Theres another one here. Its like a battery. Okay, hes calling now. Maybe he can call ms. Lee, maybe he can call 4157460119. I had this problem on another call today, and if you can phone and get on get in on this call with audio. Separate from the video. Okay. Yeah, the phone number is we have it posted. I dont know if can you hear me, mr. Olsen . No, he cant hear me. I dont know if hes looking at the chat. We can type in the public phone number. Alec, can you do that, please . Yes. Hes unmuted now. Mr. Olsen . Maybe turn off the microphone . Can you turn up your microphone . Should we try to send him another link, alec, with his name . I mean, we sent him one. Whats his name again . Mr. Charles lubin charles olsen, im sorry. Charles olsen. Okay, is he calling in . As an attendee. Okay. Hello . This is Jeffrey Nelson. I called in just in case this has happened to me. I just called in in addition to being on the video. Okay, thank you. Did he send an email with the phone number . Im not sure who hes talking to. I think hes trying to fix his computer. I think he had it unmuted and he just is his microphones arent working. Anybody else from the permit holder side that has the gentlemans Contact Information . Yeah, ms. Caroline lee is his associate, and i believe she tried to reach him. Maybe shes on the phone with him now. I can try and look into can you call him . Ill give him a phone call. Well see if we can resolve these technical issues or else i will be able to just one moment. Currently hes unmuted right now, so its on his end that its broken. Alex, do you think if we resent the link we sent him before and tell him to enter that way . No, i think its his computer thats not working. Because when he was talking, it seemed like he moved his right hand. He d use his iphone to access, if he has the zoom app. Yeah, he can just hit the link and it will pop him right into the zoom, into our zoom webinar, or he can use his phone too. So you think he hit his volume button . I dont know. It could be sometimes its just if you go under settings and audio. Yes, so lets repeat the phone number that he can call in. I dont know if he can hear, but its 8335480276. If we could type that in the chat box. Yeah. So any one of the phone numbers, toll free numbers, at the bottom. Okay, im not sure if hes reading the chat box. Julie, if we dont get this resolved soon, is there a way to kind of suspend this item and try to fix it and well, hes the attorney for the next item as well. Okay. So we need to resolve it. It would be great if he could just call in. Julie, can you hear me . Yes, i can. Can you hear me . Yes, i can. Im sorry, i cant hear you now, but i have charles linked on to my phone. So if you unmute my phone connection to the meeting, then well have him on the meeting. Okay, wonderful. Lets go to okay, your phone is unmuted now. Hang on just a second. Okay. You unmuted all the phone numbers . Yes. He can also use his iphone and just click on a link and he would have the video. Got it. Well, ive got him on the phone with me, and im on the meeting on my phone, but i believe my phone is muted. No, i unmuted you. Oh, okay. There we are. Were on. Mr. Olsen, we wanted to give you a chance to warm up. Yeah. Im sorry about that. Im not sure what happened, but. I dont know. I spend half my day on zoom. It always works fine. Charles olsen. Ill assume you didnt hear anything i said. Im representing the regent of the university of california, and we oppose the request for reconsideration of this matter because we feel the appellant has not met his burden to demonstrate that theres new or different evidence that was not available on may 27 that would affect the outcome of the earlier board decision. We submitted a full brief on this issue last week. If people have had a chance to read it, we covered all the issues in that brief. If not, just very briefly the reasons are the lead agency [indiscernible] for this project because its land under the control that will be used for a Research Building, the two organizations, the city and the regents, have a longstanding relationship at General Hospital. Pursuant to that responsibility as lead agency, the regent has prepared a very thorough and Impact Report for this project back in 2016. They updated that with an addendum in 2019 that covered some changes to the project in connection with further revealed by the im sorry, the Preservation Commission and the civic bird commission. The time to challenge those environmental documents is long past. The documents are now presumptively valid under case law. So in this case its acting as a responsible agency because they are [indiscernible] permits for work within the jurisdiction. In that regard, to the extent anyone has objections to or is claiming that the Environmental Review was somehow inadequate, that appeal should not be going to the board of appeals but as indicated in our letter under the code section 31. 16 of the [indiscernible] code any such appeal of [indiscernible] by the city needed to be directed to the board of supervisors, not the board of appeals. On similar other issues that were raised, obviously yes theres been a shutdown with covid19, access to some information, but the information that was cited by the appellant in their request for reconsideration was all available either in 2016 or 2019 being the eir or the addendum or the minutes from the parks commission. So theres no new information. Okay, mr. Olsen. Thank you. Your time is up, sir. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we will now hear from the department, mr. Buck. Good evening, commissioners. Chris buck with public works, urban forestry, and i also have three minutes . Is that correct . Yes, that is correct. Okay, so im just going to address exhibit 6, 7 and 8, and ill just do them in sequential order. In exhibit 6, page 1,631 theres a discussion about the Tree Planting requirement or in lieu that the project triggered. That is [microphone feedback] that was referenced in the hearing. We did at some point talk about other frontage and trees that would be required to be planted. Exhibit 7, page 1,633, notes from chris buck, urban forestry, how to win board of appeals hearings, if you read through those notes that were kept by the project team members, im actually pretty impressed the amount of times that i referenced and recommended that politics reach out to the appellant aapplicants reach out to the appellants. Buck recommends reaching out to him to understand his concerns, request respectfully what his concerns are. Outreach to appellant. A3, project to contact buck, the recommendations on how to listen and work with the appellant. So i had a lot of discussions about recommendations to reaching out to the appellant. And then also item 3 was all parties listed on what the project boundaries all parties are aligned on what the project boundaries are in terms of how many trees or [indiscernible] will be required. None of this is new information, and then exhibit 8, list of trees removed by sf general gardener, we have an email from march 4 confirming that the tree that was removed and not by the project team but by the department of public health, ms. Wood, was not significant, even when we were erroneously considering any trees on that site to be significant. So really i just want to address those three things. Dont see anything in here thats new, was not coaching anyone on how to win an appeal, and again 30 seconds. Tree planting requirements are always required, so thats all i want to provide at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Im just going to go slowly. I dont see anyone raising their hand who there is only one attendee, so in terms of the attendee is on the phone as well. Right. So at this point, commissioners, the matter is submitted. And we have a question from president lazarus. Actually, what id like to do is respond to an allegation that i have a conflict of interest in this matter, and i believe that our deputy City Attorney will explain the situation. Sure. Good evening, commissioners. Brad rusty from the City Attorneys office. We looked into the question of whether commissioner lazarus has a conflict in this matter and determined that she does not have a conflict under section 10. 90 of the government code or any other provision of law because she worked for a separate legal entity for ucsf. Thank you. So commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioners. I dont see any new information presented. So that would make a rehearing inappropriate. I agree with the commissioner. I dont see any new information, and just to reiterate for the appellant that the matter is mott specifically before this body, even though you may have outstanding questions regarding that document. Thats not before us today. Any information that you could not have received is presented today and i have not seen those materials. That would not have been previously available to you. I would concur. The bar for rehearing is quite hard quite high. After reviewing the material and the oral that was given, i see that the bar has not been met or manifested just. The motion . Ill make the motion. Do deny the request for rehearing on the basis that there is no