Transcripts For SFGTV Online Only SF Health Commission 20240712

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