Question is can you explain whether or not the road that will be built, extending folsom to the properties in the evacuation plan, given the steep flow . For example, has it been determined if compaction will need to be determined for the steep slope or the new roadway . Yes, all of that is being determined. It is only when we start the new projects, those will have to be dug and compacted, but we allow plenty of distance between pipeline 109 and the sewer line thats the closest, so i think its about fine feet away, and the gas pipeline is another 6 foot away from the sewer line. Only the laterals from the houses will go over the pipeline 109, and we based on the elevation points we have, we were able to verify that there is enough distance to meet all the requirements, and the sections were reviewed by d. P. W. And pg e, and i think by all the departments in the process of street improvements that were still going through. Supervisor ronen and were the materials and equipment ne needed to do that considered in the evacuation plan . Exactly. That is described in the vibration management plan. The appellant keeps on saying we have to have a big roller to compact the asphalt. There is no asphalt. Any street going over, i think its 18 , is required to be made in concrete by d. P. W. Thats d. P. W. Code. There is no compaction required of a roller, and i dont think a roller as whats described by appellant could go up such a steep slope. Again, all the work for the street is going to be done under d. P. W. And pg e supervision. Supervisor ronen okay. Thats all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. President yee okay. So next up would be for the Public Comment in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project. So what you would have to do is press star and then three and be added to the queue to speak. Okay. Madam clerk d and you have three minutes to provide Public Comment. Clerk okay. Mr. President , ill provide the phone number, 4156550001. Press the meeting i. D. , press pound, and pound again, then press star, three to be entered into the queue to speak. Operations, could you please queue up the operations. Operator madam clerk, ill unmute the first caller. Clerk welcome, caller. Once youre unmuted, you can just begin your comments. Okay. Health and wellness. Clerk okay. Welcome. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. Im angela adler, and im a resident of the districts, and im calling to ask the board of supervisors to reject the Police Officer clerk maam, im pausing your time. So were taking Public Comment in support of the folsom street appeal. We are currently taking comment in support of the project sponsor. General Public Comment will not be called until later in the meeting. We hope that you stay on board. Just press star, three, and thatll put you back in line to be present for the meeting. The budget for San Francisco is on the agenda today, but Public Comment has already been fulfilled, so were not taking Public Comment on the budget itself. We appreciate your participation, and we thank you for your patience. Okay. Operations, are there other callers on the line for this appeal, for this project . Supervisors, sean keegan, Residential Builders association. This hearing calls into question our process. The appeal is calling into question the longstanding tradition of hiring and of providing reports. This project is topic as it certainly affects the Planning Department and many, many other departments. The time of this question has to be looked at. The project sponsor and his team of consultants have been meeting with the Planning Department, the District Supervisors, and other city officials since the last hearing. Supervisors, thats almost three years ago today, raising or calling into question our citys process of hiring thirdparty independent consultants or experts at this particular time is disingenuous. The motion approved by the board of supervisors almost three years ago called for the Planning Department to a, provide Additional Information and analysis, and b, wanted to make sure that the analysis and the consultation was done by an expert, and they were independent. So as long as i can remember, the Planning Department has followed the same Standard Practice of hiring Third Party Independent experts, and those standards and those practices were followed in this case. The project sponsor did not deviate from this process. Supervisors, i certainly do not like all of our current policies, and my members dont like all of our current policies, and if you have the time, ill give you a long list of policies that i would like to see changed. But the truth of the matter is, we all must play by the rule and policies in place at that time. We cannot and should not clerk your time is up. Thank you for your time. Operations, is there any caller in the queue in support of the project sponsor . Good evening, supervisors. I just wanted to call in support of this project because i think our building and planning process is absolutely broken. Now, this nice man has been working on getting this these pair of houses built on his property for obviously more than three years, obviously has communicated with all of the relevant agencies. Hes spoken with pg e, hes spoken with department of public works, and what the result of all of this insanity in our public building process is a housing crisis and Homeless People on our street. So these fundamental issues to our city are all related. We need to decrease the cost of housing, and when we have our analysis tell us that it costs more than 600,000 to build a lowincome unit in the city, thats broken. And this process, and that were all sitting here, is the reason we dont have housing. Its the reason we didnt have housing three years ago for this specific unit. Now this process takes decades, and it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it takes attorneys. And yeah, sometimes theres a gas line, but this process is whats broken here, not these plans. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there any caller in the queue in support of the project . Hello, caller, once youre unmuted, you can just begin your comments. Okay. Hello . Clerk yes, hello, welcome. I just want to say i support the project. I think it should go through. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller on the line in support of the project . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk okay. Thank you. Mr. President . President yee okay. Thank you for your comments, and now that thats done, i will close Public Comment. [gavel]. President yee and then, lastly, about or there was no Public Comment. Clerk there was Public Comment. President yee oh, yes. Last part of this is to let the appellant present rebuttal argument. We have up to two minutes. Okay. Thank you, president yee and supervisors. I feel for the project sponsors, but if theyd done it right for the first time with this extraordinary site, they would be done by now, and we categorically disagree with what theyre saying about the roller. The project sponsors own consultant prepared the d. N. P. Instead of an independent consultant as required. Planning had a peer review of the erroneous report done by the sponsors consultant. Your requirements have not been met. The Legal Standard is clear. If there is any substantial evidence in the record supporting even a fair impact, and thats a quote, regardless of evidence on the other side, the appeal must be granted. If the vibration isnt safe, it doesnt matter if pg e is onsite or not. You heard about a student conflict of interest within the Fire Department which approved the management plan. Sfpd did not respond to a sunshine request for documents from this project. Pg e have spent the last few days trying to shore up their approval. One of the biggest risk factors here is still unevaluated, and ill add that pg e refused to provided their underlying records and analysis for review, and theyre giving themselves a threehour Response Time if theres an accident. This was a pipeline had a 30feet pine tree growing on top of it, and they didnt remove the stump. They say they didnt miss it, but if they didnt miss it, why did they leave it growing there . The Emergency Management and evacuation plan that sfpd approved is patently dangerous. It used the 325foot radius instead of the 750foot radius. The purpose of meetings is to properly implement the plan, but if the plan is seriously flawed, and ceqa requires that it be fixed now before referral, referral is actually illegal. Ceqa is clear what needs to happen. Thank you. Clerk sir, thank you for your comments, and your three minutes is concluded. President yee okay. Thank you. I guess this public hearing has been held and is now filed. [gavel]. President yee supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen yes, thank you, president yee. This project has caused me more heartache than i think even the 500unit projects and 300unit projects in the mission that has such a major impact on the neighborhood and the Economic Impact on the neighborhood because these safety concerns are very real, and theyre very intense, and theyve impacted me enough. I live very close to the site. I dont live close enough to the site that i would be impacted out by the decision, but i live close enough that i would be impacted. And i live close enough that i know so many of the neighbors that live even closer to this pipeline, and they are dear friends of mine. I have taken this as seriously as one could take a project. Ive spent countless hours over my term three separate times analyzing and trying to deeply understand this project. So have two of my legislative aides its got through two aides because one of them worked in my office and then moved on, so weve taken this as seriously as we could. I feel that two years ago, when i felt that a mitigated an additional mitigated review was needed of this project, that we set forth clear criteria for which the project sponsor had to follow and give us more information and do additional study, and that the project sponsor had done that, and hes made his best to do that, and hes given us the best information that weve required from him. In addition, today, when im feeling frustrated that so much additional review is going to happen after this appeal is before us and decided, that both the fire marshal and d. P. I. And d. P. W. Is going to have an additional review process where many additional safety conditions are going to be required of the project sponsor to make sure that this project is built in a safe fashion. I spoke with the d. P. W. Director this morning, who had put a plastic bag flag in this the project to notify my office when d. P. W. Permits are issued and when the street permits on the project are issued on the street. We already talked to the fire amarshal that he was going to have additional requirements for a fire and safety plan, and i will do the same for d. B. I. I will continue im not disappearing after today. I will continue to be deeply involved as it moves forward in each of these steps because i will not let a project be built in this neighborhood without every single safety requirement that we could possibly put into place in order to make sure that my constituents are safe. While we build normally over pipelines in the city, and that happens over time, i just dont know what else that i can ask from this project sponsor to make the conditions safer. And i want to thank the appellants who pushed so hard so that these additional investigations and preparations could be done. They never would have been done without you, and i am deeply sorry to disappoint you today. I hate disappointing my constituents, but again, i will not disappear. Im going to work with you and with the city departments to make sure those plans are adequate and robust, and well be by your side and be vigilant as this moves through the Building Permit process, and well hold the sponsor liable to keep this project safe. And with that, ill make a move to approve item 69 and table items 70 and 71. President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin thank you, president yee. I put my name onto hopefully second the motion that supervisor ronen just made, and i do that with the same pain because i know the appellants, but i do have to say that i was on the board that adjudicated this matter that sent back a very clear set of requirements, which requirements have been met, and we could have done Something Different two years ago, instead, that this required an e. I. R. , but we did not come to that conclusion based on what was in the record at that time. So im on this to second supervisor ronens motion. President yee okay. Theres been a motion made to approve item number 69 and table 70 and 71. And madam clerk, a roll call, please. Clerk yes, mr. President , i will do so, but at this point, im asking mr. Angus and miss patterson to turn their cameras off at this point. Okay. On the motion to approve item 69 and table items 70 and 71 [roll call] clerk there are ten ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, then, item 69 is approved, and items 70 and 71 are tabled. [gavel]. President yee okay. All right. Lets go onto our third and final special order for 3 00 p. M. Madam clerk, can you please call items 72 through 75 . Clerk item 72 is the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act issued as a categorical exemption by the Planning Department on februanovember 2 2019, for the proposed project at 178 seacliff avenue, to demolish an existing threestory singlefamily residence with a detached garage and to construct a new threestory over basement singlefamily residence with a twocar garage. President yee okay. Colleagues, we have before us the appeal before us for the hearing of determination of exemption from Environmental Review. After the hearing, we will vote whether to exemption the project under Environmental Review under ceqa. We will provide as follows. Up to ten minute presentation by appellant or their representative, up to three minutes each for Public Comment. Up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representative, then up to three minutes for those to speak in support of the project or in opposition to the appeal, and two minutes for rebuttal or objection. Seeing no objection, well proin th proceed in this way, and the hearing is now open. Supervisor stefani, do you have any comments . Supervisor stefani thank you, president yee. I will wait until after presentations to make my Public Comments. President yee okay. At this time, appellant can make their statements. Miss garrett. Yes. I im alicia garrett. At this point, im going to see if i can share my slide here. Can you see the slide presentation . That may not have worked. Okay. Im just going to go forward if the clerk isnt able to share the presentation there. Operator just give me one second. Next slide, please. So we are here because we raised an appeal of our discretionary review situation, and its because there are situations that impact the Public Interest, and theres an extraordinary circumstance here in which this project does not comply with the seacliff Historic District and residential Design Guidelines, and so i am going to focus on the fair argument issue to demonstration that the project that we have materially impairs the ceqa avenue Historic District resulting in a Significant Impact, and this gets to the question that supervisor peskin and president yee raised in your first hearing about when is a categorical exemption appropriate. We have established, using the citys own reports, and the Historic Resource evaluation report that the that there is evidence of a ceqa impact, further needing a review. Or resembles nothing like the style and characterdefining features of the district. Without that, there is a considerable concern that there is a significant ad verse impact to the Historic District. There is no dispute that no other structures since 2006 have been demolished. No structures have been replaced with buildings that are out of character with the neighborhood other than one, and so now, all of a sudden, 14 years later, the project sponsoring the Planning Department claim it doesnt matter, because well just rely on how everybody else complies, and well rely on what everybody else says is significant. Well, i hate to tell you, thats not how ceqa works. We request that this project be held to the same standards that the city has been applying based on the residential Design Guidelines, based on the secretary of interior standards for how you treat historic property, and look at the context in which this building is being constructed, being demolished. Good evening, president yee and supervisors. Can you go to the next slide, please. This slide is from an earlier submission made, and id just like to go over it quickly to emphasize that the proposed design is not compatible with the Historic District. The front yard, the form and order of the massing of the proposed house, the facade composition, and the type of windows it has, the houses r