that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning

>> good evening and welcome to the september 13, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president swig will be the officer and joined by vice president jose lopez. superintendent travel vinasm lemberg and eppler. and deputy city attorney for legal advice. system and i'm julie rosenberg executive director. we'll be joined by city departments. rich hill us director of planning. tina tammy. za from planning. and matt green deputy director inspection service with dbi. veronica, program manager for site mitigation environmental health branch. and ryan casey caseworker with

dph site mitigation program and item 4 we be joined by representatives from the california department of toxic substance control. we have shaw the project manager will present and also to answer questions kim walsh unit chief. gaez, branch chief and catherine, staff legal councilment guide lines are as follows. turn off all electronics. no eating or drinking. the rules of presentation are follows, rehearing "parties and departmental respondedents begin 3 minutes and no rebuttal. members not affiliates va3 minutes and no rebuttal. our legal assistance will give you a warning 30 seconds before your time sus. 4 votes are required.

if you have questions about the board rules the hearing schedule e mail board of appeals sfgov.org. public access and participation are paramount importanceful sfgovtv is broadcasting and strolling and receive public comment for each item on the agendaful sfgovtv is providing closed captionings for this meeting to watch on tv go to will sfgovtv channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream on the home page of the website sfgov.org/boa. public comment can be provided by in person, via zoom go to our website click on the zoom link. by phone. call 669-900-6833, access code: 848 3864 2804 . and again sfgovtv is broadcasting and strolling the

number and instructions on the bottom of the screen. to block your number when call nothing first dial star 67 then the number. listen for the public comment portion and dial star 9 to raise your hand. you will be brought in the hear handwriting it is your turn you miff have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. you will have 3 minutes there will be a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time sus. there is a delay with live proceedings and what is broadcast. it is important that people call nothingrous or turn off volume on tv's or computers. if the participates on wareroom need a disability accommodation or assistance request in the chat function or e mail to board of appeals sfgov.org the chat function can not be used for comment or pregnancy. we will take comment first from

those members physically present. now, we will swear in our affirm all those who intends to testify. any member may speak without an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance if you mean intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your hand and say, i do after you are affirmed. do you swear the tum give be the truth? >> okay. thank you if you mean are a participate and you are not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. item 1, is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone hold like to speak within the board's jurisdiction not on tonight's calendar. is well a member of the public who wishes to speak on an item not on the agenda. we have one here in the room and a few on zoom. welcome. you have 3 minutes. >> should i start?

>> continue. this is my backyard early 30 year. when a storm came through. basically it got flood my neighbors on both sides built adu with concrete in the backyard the water dump in my yard the house behind me has concrete and a 10 by 10 house here has concrete and 10 by 10 only this house as grass. all of this is getting dump in the my yard. can i had to go out and take a shovel and punch the holes to keep the water from going in my house. i hit a mole hole that's the reason the water came out i had over 6 inches. if you watch the video it lit irrelevant there are waves back in my yard. from all the water this got

dumped n. i ordered 12 inch plastic and i wrapped my mire your in plastic trying to create a shield. so i know where sb9 and tent goal is to take a normal house and convert up to 4 units in doing that and going almost to the property line, you will create more of these situations in the neighboring house. i have been in backyards people have done illegal versions you are in the yard there is in sun there are 2 or 3 stories tall and grandpa is live nothing that build and blocking the light for the neighbors people looking down. it is crediting an environment not why most people bought a house in the sun cement if you need 80,000 units you can by changing the law, they are in the held hostage.

if i say to somebody i will give you sick month fist i sell. 6 month system time for somebody to look for an apartment. people getting them know they are getting them at discounselled rates because can't charge. and most neighbors on the block refuse to use the space empty eco friend low thing for the city to do. there is nothing needs to be built t. is there it is not used. if they get a renter charged 100 thousand dollars to get this person to move out. just with legislative changes could be different. >> time. my taxes are 15 thousand dollars. when you amtorize it over 30 years they'll be over 30 thousand dollars. many of my neighbors who have taxes over thoind when they are retired will not be able to afford to live in house.

taking their inlaw unit and making manage they can have indm you can get rent ags you want and more denialsity and levigate problems. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else in the hearing room hold like to provide general public comment. >> so we will go to zoom. mr. mc myrtle, go ahead. >> thank you, julie. a few taxi permit holders plan to comment. thank you to the commissioners especially for the favorable rulings last november 16. on all 3 appeals involving disabled career drivers mo who held prop k taxi medallions. city is turning on transportation director ruled that your board no longer has jurisdiction over taxicab permit appealseen though that right is

in the year 1932 city charter. sfmta now begun a new expectancyive way for similar revocations. the 3 permit holders you vicinity indicated had medallions none reviewnewed again. thanks for your diligence you have shown in serving the public. we taxi member industry members hope this in the future your board will regain jurisdiction over taxi permit appeals. that's it, thanks. >> thank you. we will hear from the phone number ending 2801. go ahead. press star. you unmuted yourself you have 3 minutes. >> my comment is about the member one issue, i dial in the too soon >> okay.

>> thank you. we'll hear from the phone number ending in 1405. go ahead. >> whether or not there are more on the board who will fight for taxi who's permits have been taken away. thank the mta for not permitting us to appeal revocations. why does taxi drivers have to pay thousands for an attorney to get the the city to act properly. and refer our appeal rights. is there any other group and in san francisco who does not have access to the work of appeals?

thank you. >> thank you mr. nihart now phone number in 2528, go ahead. yes. >> go ahead. hello? >> hello. >> yes, hello i'm george. i have taxi medallions 1303 i drove a cab in san francisco for 43 years. and in december of 2016 i suffered almost fatal the kidney failure in in a wheel chair since i'm unable to walk and unable to drive a cab. sfmta is attempt to take away my taxi medallion in spite of the fact i have been in front of them 2 times and in front of the board of appeals 5 times which affirms my right to keep my taxi

medallion. now the sfmta unilaterally said that the board of appeals has no standing and they will take my medallion in spite of the fact the rights to the appeal in san francisco charter for over 90 years. this is an un[inaudible] power grab by an unaccountable city agency. they are now a star chamber this makesum their rules as they go long diameter city charter be damned. i don't know when the [inaudible] will being but i want to take this time to thank all the commissioners and president swig for doing the right thing and affirming my right to keep my medallion i'm forever grateful to each and every one of you may god bless you all. thank you very, very much.

thank you. >> thank you we'll hear from [inaudible]. go ahead. mr. fontsecka >> can you hear me. >> yes. welcome. >> thank you. i'm marcello i'm a career cabdriver. long time driver, full time driver for more than 30 years and i have been a medallion holder since 2009. i'm calling to make you aware of the sfmta going after the same permit holders you helped not long ago. hay are not the only ones they are going after many more medallion holders. they are being vindictive and i'm troubled by that. i hope there will be a challenge to the city attorney opinion

that the sfmta has the power to terminate cabdriver rights to a few. to this board of appeals. the sfmta is abusing the power by seek revenge against medallion holders cases they lost. if there is anything you can do to regain jurisdiction of taxi permit appeals, i urge you to do so. i really think this abuse of power by the sfmta must stop. i thank you profoundly for the cases you heard before. i thank you prosecute foundly efficient rulings before. but again i just want to be here tonight with my colleagues and bring to your awareness that the sfmta is being vindictive going

after the same people you refused to noted long ago >> thank you very much >> we'll hear from mark. go ahead. >> can you hear me? >> welcome >> okay i'm mark paulson the holder of taxi medannion 265 i'm eighty-one years old and native of san francisco i drove a taxi in san francisco for 42 years. 1970 until june of 2012 and i was diagnosed at 70 with atrial prilagz i'm here to discuss the sfmta which in my opinion, operates outside the law and [inaudible]. i just received a notice of nonrenewal for my medallion from the sfmta. which came as a surprise to me.

given the fact that the reason cited by the sfmta for refusal it renew it was little same arguments presented at my hearing observe the board of appeals on march second, 22. 20 twoochl when the sfmta was the appellate. what is more surprising is the fact that the sfmta did noted challenge that the decision made by board of appeals at that time. when it lost the feel have my medallion revoked and decide to combh after me a third time now that my right to impartial hearing before the board of appeals have been removed. well is little doubt that should a third hearing take place tell be in a kangaroo court setting. and i cannot ford a lawyer and remy lie on chat gpt for legal

advice it did mention i'm not a latin scholar i would not pronounce it correct, which would mean a great deal to the lawyer there is. they would understand that. so the decision to subject no to a third hearing raises questions about the legalities of the sfmta. that said, i wish to reiterate it is my petition the sfmta policy of comupon pelling elder leave, retired and disabled taxi medallion holders and no long are safety [inaudible] positions to submit a drug and alcohol test suggest i violation of the fourthed amendment right against unreasonable searchs i immroer to you examine the legalities of the actions by the sfmta. if ensurety rights of

individuals are upheld in accordance with the law. that's it, folks, for me. >> we will hear from tom sita neddal. go ahead. >> i'm calling about irving street. >> ma'am, that item has not been called yet. >> this is general public comment. okay. thank you. other general public comment? i see one more hand. renee are you hear for general public comment not an item on the agenda? i'm here for 2550. sorry. we will get to you. thank you. >> any further general public comment? i don't see any we'll move on it

item 2. commissioner comments and questions? >> anybody have anything? seeing none, sorry. thank you president swig. i have been on for a year and i don't know the answer to this question. the equal employment commission and agencies have protections for retaliation if people who come before them. and i wonder whether without commenting on the specifics of the people who testified spoken do we have any such retaliation? provisions or are there any in the city charter that you may know about or the city attorney may know about? >> i refer that to the city attorney who always has answers to those difficult questions. well not always.

i don't know the charter has prosecute visions but any of the federal lus would, of course, apply. to city employees. upon they may apply but as to provisions for people who come before us. any protections against retelliation. i'm not aware of anything in the charter related to retaliation or in our rules? >> i'm not aware of anything specifically on this. >> thank you. >> julie did you have anything to add. >> i'm not awear of rule or ordinance that would address your concern about retaliation. >> is there a commission like the ethicky commission we can refer this devote temperature is an interesting question. >> i don't think we know all the

facts related sfmta. of course, the ethic's commission is always available. >> anybody this retelliates somebody who miss inspect front of us. >> when -- somebody has a problem with one of us we go to ethics. and -- and do we are protected, i wonder if the public is protected. given experience of the issues that come before us and the decisions are. med originally. fooel people feel retaliated against and should be a place for them to go. i want us it is explore this can the city for future consideration. thank you. good question. appreciate it.

>> anybody else have anything today. let's move on >> public comment on this item? commissioner comments and questions? >> i see one hand raised. i know are you here for 2550 or raising your hand. no i'm sorry i thought i lowered my hand. thank you i doll this now. >> i don't see public comment for this item. we'll move on to item 3 the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption the minutes of september 6, 2023 meeting. i did speak with president swig before the hear and item 5mented clarify that he made the motion for only the first 3 reasons specified by commissioner lemberg. one the initial notice provided by public works, twoshgs the notice of the hearing sent by board office was flawed since incorrect address. and 3, the permit holderit

someday a brief and appellate did in the have an opportunity to review it. he wants to strike the last 3 reasons in the minutes. >> any comment on this do we have a motion. move to approve the minutes as amended. >> thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner trasvina on that motion, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> this is passed. item 4. this is rehearing request for appeal 23-034 subject property 2550 irving mid sunset neighborhood association the appellate is requesting a rehearing of appeal number 23-034 decided on august 16th.

at this time, upon megz by vice president lopez the board voted 2, twoshgs 1 and president swig absent to deny it and uphold the permit on the bases it was properly issued the motion failed. upon motion by commissioner tras vin at board voted 2, 2, 1 and president swig absent to continue this to september 6. so president swigz could participate in a decision. lacking the 3 votes needed pass it failed. no further moergzs were made the permit was upheld by operation of law tenderloin development corporation and the description to e rekt 7 store ib90 dwelling unit to include support service office, property management, bike, service space and residential parking with lift and pit stack are 100%

affordable housing. >> and as a matter president swigz did you have an opportunity to watch the video and review the materials for the hearing on august 16th. i did and furthermore i think i have to disclose that i had dealings with the council representing the parties in for all -- and i have no conflict or reason to >> council for the permit holder. >> right. >> and that would -- that will not affect my decision in this matter. >> thank you. >> so, we will now begin the case and will hear first from the appellate. requestor. and welcome are mr. wang you have 3 minutes.

>> thank you. wong for appellate. sunset neighborhoods association. board members. president swig and vice president lopez. the last of hearing it was apparent i will restart your time. speak into the mic. >> the last hearing it was readily apparent how important an issue this was and how inconclusive the evidence was presented was. speak in the mic we can't hear you and the public needs to hear you. >> at the last hearing it was apparent how important an issue this was and the how it was inconclubhousive. the findings and the evidence the conflict between the limited testimony given by experts on the msn aside and the issues raisedllow question and answer. and this were raised by the

comments med by board members the end of the hearing. manifest injustice is the standard which means clear error or prejudiceed party if a different result was in the reached. there is machine fest injustice here to msna. that's the reason why rehear suggest necessary. there was a couple of misconceptions that the evidence rehearing would serve to this in clarify the first, of those misconceptions is that there seem to agreement that the neighborhood need to bes cloned up. what difference would it make to clean up 2550. the evidence will show it would make a significant difference to clone up 2550 in terms of cleaning up the neighborhood. if you leave it be you don't clean up 2550 you let the

construction be completed you clone up around 2550. there would be contamination at this site. causing a significant health risk to the neighbors. thirdly, and most importantly. the evidence of rehearing go in detail about the specific health risks this exist. there is conflict over between the testimony you will hear more extensive low from the medical toxicologist and the doctor regarding intercepting the findings. at the indoor air sampling and the affect it will have on the neighbors. there was also misconceptions and this was apparent in the [inaudible] which is decide announce defend approach.

that would be inconsistent not brought out not guilty end of the hearing. amongst these inconsistencies were characterizations. >> 30 seconds. whether a source is needed if you could pause i can show the slide. >> time is paused. >> can we have the computer, please. computer? thank you. >> this is slide number one. you will see that there is a number of inconsistencies. it is hard it read. this is the evidence this would come out at rehearing. number 2, can you pause i'm not getting. i paused. >> second slide. men give him a hand. please.

you can go head. >> it is on the computer. the contamination from the businesses to the east of 26th the stops at 26 guess north. >> thank you this is time. >> okay. thank you we have a couple questions one from president swigz swig.

the reason you near rehear suggest it was identified this is manifest injustice because the you feel the dt sd got more time to speak than you did. >> the appellate did. >> they got more time to speak the important issues many were. >> excuse me that was the answer. . upon my review and i have the luxury of being able to sit in front of my computer and see it over and over fimented to. the reason than i received more time is not because they were offered more time. but because the commissioners rightfully asked questions because the commissionersmented more information. which would inform them as to make a proper decisions. so why -- that is the reason of

the dtse had more actual time the commissioners were asking them questions not buzz this commission offered them in some proprietor fashion. or priority fashion, sorry. the time. so where is the manifest injustice if the commissioners, trying to do the best possible job than i could, for all sides, including the public who is in the a party; where is the manifest injustice to this? the machine fest injustice is not the commissioners did are didn't do. the commissioners have a very honorable and difficult job. the manifest injustice is had would happen if there was not a full opportunity to present evidence on the critical issues. this were raised as the tail end

of the hearing that's where, manifest injustice come from case law from statute federal rules and it refers to the prejudice that would result if the outcome were to stand. and the error that -- would result if the result were to stand. it is nothing that the board did do or didn't do. there was a motion to have another hearing on this. was deadlocked. if i understand everything that you -- said. if we were to consider that point as manifest injustice we valid a rehearing on every case that come in front of us there is new evidence presented, which is sometimes surfaces not new evidence but further discussion

of evidence that is rehashd and furthering inquiry made during question and answer period. so, the issue for me is that and there was a full hearing on this. the appellate and the the permit holdser and the planning department had the full opportunity to give it their best shot. present all the information they could. my observation is that the appellate made their presentation. had the opportunity to especially since this was the second go round. we heard this before. and many case i benched rehashing the same information. clear newscast first hearing even though we are hearing the second hearing de novo, still there was information available

to the public and it am discuss that -- so -- so information, information could that was important could have been anticipated and i thought you put fourth a strong presentation. in making your case and that was that. as did the permit holds and i shall planning and -- in their diligence the commissioners asked good questions this further investigated, and but -- we would be rehearing rehearing what should have been done in the first place i don't understand why there is now information or you think we would not rehashing the same stuff this was heard in the first case. that's where my problem is and that's where i'm questioning whether there is machine fest

injustice there is no new information. we know what you are saying and heard it before am where is the machine manifest injustice? >> i was here at the hearing msna has experts comprehend republic to the dtsc and this commission is mislead and misinformed. it is this simple. i can go through a list this left investigation this you asked for -- was rigged by dtsc they rigged the investigation. did come leastly the opposite of when we asked for. they did in the engage us and it is ride for guys like me it is hide nothing site in the public record. you know the manifest injustice is you need experts like me who know this site as well as

anywhere working on it for 2-1/2 years. i work with dtsc daily with my professional consulting practice. and they have gone rogue in this situation. we heard from meridith will wimgz the most protective standard needed to be applyd and dtsc i know cites with more protective standards applied. can i go in detail fist you give me a few minutes to talk. you are mislead. than i are covering up their olds mistakes. this is such a simple situation to clone up. remediation of this site. if they listened to us 2 years ago during public meant this would be cloned up we would not be here. when --e a clean property, a clone property with no health

risks that used to mean something. people are trying to sweep health risks under the rug >> i dethey'll out. dtsc in path forward colludeod that investigation not find anything and than i put i standard out there that is like a ridiculous standards myself and dan who testified left time have never heard of. we are cloning up in the last 6 months cloned up 3,000 pounds we don't have near this here but we can reduce the health risk here the levels boy 90%.

if people just -- realize that there is i simple solution here. if you give us another hearing and equal time i can detail this. they made mistakes, missed opportunities. covering tracks. than i don't have an -- when i got involved they did not have an understanding of how the voluntary clone up and clear agreements work together. there was i rookie arthur that -- was first rodeo and did not know had he was talking about. it was like another world. they let police credit union should be remodeiating the site let them go, walk out of a clean up agreement before the job was done. and like said the prior hearing they are living somewhere at this saying like we fwt, way with this. because they did. and the birth picture is the neighborhood. this property but you know if

than i let mitigation go here this will happen on the south side where the please credit union wants to build housing there. what happened to the board of supervisor resolution. i know it is nonbinding but -- i would home it means something. you know a resolution, unanimously pass boyd the board of supervisors. dtsc is screwed up. soil vapor extraction. 11 settleal can highlight areaos that where they are not following their own guidance. >> thank you. >> there is machine fest injustice you are being mislead boy dtsc and they are misrepresenting information if you give. >> and ask our experts the right questions >> thank you. >> thank you. >> appreciate the. >> say your name, sir.

>> commissioner lemberg. >> sir, can you give mow a reminder on your name for the minutes. sorry. >> thank you. yes. thank you. >> thank you. my pon this matter is no secret. however, i you are hear on a resay different standard we have to address that. and -- i'm going to ask a question i >> president swig -- has there been new evidence since our august 16th hear thanksgiving would be presented that is not already presented? >> when you mean new evidence, there was evidence that was not shared with us this we did not have access to after the end of

july. we submitted briefs. i understand. my question is has there been new information uncovered since august 16th? yes, reasonable this was available but slipped under the radar. and that was the computer. this slide. here this . s burr ed in from best. consultants this point and not

including things that happened on august 14 and 15th >> not that i'm aware of. >> thank you. >> i'll come back. >> commissioner trasvina. we lapsed to discussion and -- argument on this. and i -- i'm trying not to do that. but -- i'm wondering it seems to me commissioner lemberg is asouffléing the standard is new or different material facts and circumstances is a quote from our rule.

i read our rule says except in extraordinary cases and prevent manifest injustice you need new circumstances. >> you are standing on manifest injustice this is required rather than new facts. the standards except in extraordinary cases. you don't need to show new or different material facts. >> i will ask the city attorney to weigh in on what our rule means. but it is not written so perhaps

you can provide guidance as well. in our hearing record, i which -- i did not submit. but somebody named j. j. submitted. page 397 out of 408 there is a diagram cancer clutch in and around pc e contaminated brown field. have you seen this, are you familiar with this? >> i believe so. i seen a cancer cluster monopoly. i'm not sure i i i'm assuming the same i had seen. >> looks extraordinary to me. would you consider that manifest injustice to allow that to condition without a rehearing. i would. >> being the health hazzard is the most serious that's why we are here. >> thank you. and the dtsc filed a brief and

to quote them catherine -- says dtsc committed all residents of the new develop and surrounding neighbor remain safe. do you consider the surroundings neighbors currently in a safe condition that they would be remaining safe? >> no, i would not. >> why not? >> because the analysis and testimony. doctor medical toxicologist and the work done boy lenny settleal. >> thank you. >> thank you. vice president lopez. >> thank you, mr. wong. i guess -- further along the manifest injustice prong. you know what you laid out just now in your testimony and your

brief, a number of different arguments i think the one that i could see a potential path way -- in my mind anyway. is -- this question of inconsistency in dtsc's testimony. i believe you had a slide on this. your time was limited so i was hoping not to completely reopen everything. if you could give us you know may be a couple of -- high level points to -- fully color in that argument. and -- what00 eye would like to hear i think the 2 previous hearings have been focussed on like competing experts. and as we have noted a couple of

times we don't have a panel of most low larceny up here and not scientists. so it is hard for us to go through competing claims of science in my opinion that is those types of standards. are best left for legislative bodies. not for our body to weigh in on. but to the extent have you an inconsistency within dtsc's own testimony not for saying, hey, they are applying the wrong standard we think this should be applied but rather dtsc said, a, that does in the get you to b. within their own the confines of their own the 4 corners of when they said. that is i guess what i would consider to be inconsistency this this board could weigh in on.

>> the expert and -- couple decades experience prepared the slide. so -- the first i want to say -- that's, yes. their inconsistencies can be found in their own testimony with each other. there is inconsistency with their testimony and written and also we are not asking this board to do anything but to evaluate the expert testimony, which is when it does. we are not asking the board to change not a legislative body. but the third part of

inconsistency is also between dtsc's treatment of this site and other cites and all of that will be flushed out through the evidence and testimony presented at rehearing. i want to ask lenny settleal. >> 2 issue i did not have an opportunity in the left hear to respond to. that i believe is said this and -- >> it is clear language in the

technology guidance spes fies the ectraction used as a remedy for addressing a site like this. the other thing was the statement that the -- in most the homes this have been analyzed has been sampled. the idea this the levels of contamination are acceptable. and in doing that, and you know i read the report but i did not have a chance to comper se it against guidance. those levels in order to make those acceptable dtsc used averaging. under the contract of reasonable exposure which they used, you don't average if you have 2 samples over time. it does not follow guidance if than i have done several over a course of a couple year for them to say that levels are acceptable. it is premature and in conflict

with our guidance. so so if we have another hearing and may be we [inaudible]. i would like to present [inaudible]. >> various things we'll send in and or inconsistent with written guidance as applyd and with the treatment of other cites similar cites >> got it, thank you. >> commissioner lemberg. >> i did incorrect low state the standard and it is in the alternative to prevent manifest injustice. i guess my question is what --

>> is it something other than that i heard a few times in the briefing the manifest injustice is the result itself and men the process this we went through last time. what -- apart from what commissioner trasvina mentioned when other parts am i missing here? the >> term manifest injustice is in the in the board ruleless. i locked at federal rules of civil procedure. 59, that's the term this intercepted by law. and how manifest injustice is define side in the black law dictionary. there is more a substantive component then and there procedural. there is a procedure is involved in the classic example is if --

somebody is wrongfully convicted >> i'm not asking the definition of it i'm asking what it is here? if we don't reguarantee this rehearing. >> it is the result that is there would not be lone up before construction that can be accomplished without delaying the project. it would cause detriment, harm to the neighboring residence denials this would not be cured by vapor intrusion and mitigation and continue to sit in the neighborhood. not be cured by cleaningum around it. and in my opinion it is result that would result from the failure to hear both sides of the issue of [inaudible]. and guidance. >> thank you. >> okay. president swig? >> no.

>> okay. thank you no further questions you can be seated we will hear from the permit holder. >> upon >> good evening. thank you president swig and the board. i'm [inaudible] i'm the sociality director of housing development. you know a mission driven nonprofit with a successful track record in developing housing for low income people in san francisco. since 1981 we have 460 afford hab homes the 2550 irving serves our mission providing houses and services for low income people in the west side and prosecute meeting access to opportunity. as with all of the projects the

project at 2550 has taken a language time and tremendous amount of effort when [inaudible]. issuance of this permit is the final steps before we begin construction. on a project this we have been working on for over 3 years. for context, raised objections to the project since the beginning. these objections included but no means limited to the concerns over pc e. and original low objected the scale of the project and the appropriateness for the neighborhood. and as i mentioned we continue to defends active litigation over the issues. after the environmental concerns, they have been heard on multiple occasions. they have 3 public meetings about the neighborhood and environmental concerns and this board held 12 hours of hearings and hundreds of pings of

material submitted by them cross the last 2 years. we believe the sudden front process has already afforded them a full vetting of their consent. >> to recap hat board heard the last 2 appeals the site has been tested. characterized and investigated. and the conclusion of the expert. this jurisdiction over the issue, is this 2550 irving site is not a source of pc e. approval of the site permit or denial of the rehearing request will not change these facts or the outcome for the neighborhood. also, no new facts or circumstances irrelevant have come to light that warranty a rihearing. please consider tht appeal and lawsuits have already added a million dollars of costs to the project. this project highlights the

custs of building affordable housing and the high cost in san francisco. a rehearing of the appeal would be a waste of resources. addeen more costs drill and manager this should be allocated to more productive pursuits building more housing t. is time to move forward, please deny this request for rehear and allow you to build this housing. >> >> thank you. i don't see questions. the issue whether it is a source of the chemical or whether it exists. when is your statement today. it is not a source of the chemical. >> is it present at 2050 y. in

concentrations which are the below screening levels allowed >> okay. it exists. >> yes. and i than i have gone on the line if i'm misspeaking. please. go ahead. the manager expert. >> i, approximately joiz i'm under the weather. >> our investigations have shown our site is not the source of pc e. and this you know our property is similarly impacted as the other properties in the neighborhood. and we worked normal procedures the plan to build safe building for the future. when is your resistance of doing the prop this msna asked for?

>> the resistance is this when they are asking for is not warrantied based on the information there. they are asking us to clone up something this does not exist on our property. so by cleaning up our property and i know this they had mentioned this during their previous testimony during the previous appeal; you clone it up it might look good but when you are done follow get recontaminated you have not identified the source of where the material is coming from. why thank you. >> you are welcome. >> thank you. i don't see further questions. we will hear from planning. >> good evening. upon commissioners. president swig and vice president lopez. as we said in our memo we don't know 've believe well is no evidence this would warranty a rehearing. you know this project of entitled under sb35. it is consistent with our adopted housing element.

criminalities to the requirement this is we build or the goal we build 46,000 of affordable housing focused on neighborhood commercial adjacent to transit in the city like this that are seeing little to no affordable housing built in the left decade. >> we think it is promote this the niches raise concerns. with soil conditions and environmental conference. in their neighborhood. we don't believe this permit has a vehicle for addressing the occurrence. is the present way to look at the concerns. approval of this permit does in the stop the city's work. in this neighborhood. around the issues. dtsc will engage and dph will. the board of supervisors commissioner lopez you said can call hearings and legislate. appropriate low if than i need to. the state can get involved our health experts at public health

can call hearings. this does in the preclude the city from continuing to work with them to address the occurrence of the neighborhood. we think it is appropriate this you move forward and deny this request and allow this critical housing project to move forward. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> thank you for joining us. i'm sorry to miss you. >> good to see you >> the big boss here. >> this is a site permit. right? >> yes. >> right >> not a building permit. >> right? >> i think it is both. it was a demo this is the site permit. other before. >> and we have a site permit and sorry. construction permit, right >> to move forward. that will be a third phase -- and my gut feel seen this

process go forth again, it is another by the of the apple. for any do we another or not? >> there are permits but not appealable. >> this is the site permit that will be in the schedule and issued different construction can start but not appealable. >> this automatically becomes the construction permit? once construction is approved. no action has been taken on approving those since this permit. >> this is the last by the of the apple. >> correct. >> great. >> i clarify for this again if there are issues around the conscience of the soil in the neighborhood, i believe there are many additional bites of the apple. >> what i'm trying to stay

focussed here well is no doubt, we have seen this item twice. we saw it in demolition, we are now in site. >> correct. >> right and we are all clear and i think i commented -- during the demolition period of my sensitivity about cancer causing material in soil. and our job here to be sensitive to this. and not just pass something knowing this folks will get sick as result of our actions. i can't remember my exact words >> basically that's the spirit of it. the same time we have to stay focused on the fact that this is a -- building permit. this allows them to build.

and -- so the -- to me the manifest injustice i'm trying to sort out whether this manifest injustice is regional goes beyond this site. or it applies here. because for me there have been 2 fair hearings. and also if there is any new information. and so, does this [inaudible] you are head of plan and supposed to project the citizens of the city of san francisco. do you see anything that -- does not comply to the issuance of a building permit and do you see

any new evidence and there was empassioned testimony earlier. this would indicate anything that the planning department should reconsider in the issuance of this building permit? and probably the last -- item should -- which would for me -- build on the machine fest injustice piece, although i'm not convinced yet. is there anything that in moving forward with this if we were to find manifest injustice. and still would allow this building permit that we should require a term and condition associated with the issuance of this permit broader clone up issue the broader issues of identifying that the source of

the environmental concerns that addressing them is on going. and -- you issuing allowing this permit to move forward that will continue to happen. you heard from the experts. we heard from the experts and rely on this moving forward with this permit does not impoed this ability it help in some cases whether it is identify issues in the soil start to clone emif need be. that if there is in the impede the city's ability to resolve issues identified. those continue. >> so, we heard this last time we heard tht time before during the demo hearing or appeal. is there any new information that changes planning's opinion on whether. >> no. >> this permit should be issued

or should be continued in good standing. >> no. we went through the appellate brief there is in new information even the information than i presented today was rehashing the information this the appellate presented previously. >> and in your view, is where is the manifest injustice letting them speak others again result of answers and questions, or is there anything prevented from being heard as farz regular testimony. you hit it you asked questions or the commissioners asked questions of dtsc just like you miof me or dbi but we each are begin 3 minutes and given the same ability to present to you with evidence in the brief so --

the way the hearing works. no we don't see additional evidence. in believe this this project should be able to move forward. to meet our housing goals and the issues that the neighbors have concern busy will continue to be addressed. >> thank you very much. commissioner trasvina? >> thank you, i like to follow up on one responses to president swig. did i understands you to say that the approval of the permit would enhance your ability to clean update neighborhood? >> i think you should dress this is better by dtsc that's what i heard in prior hearing the w they are doing in relationship to this project will help them identify perhaps identify what the source is. or this is the source or not i

believe it is a better question again. >> so you don't know yourself. >> i'm repeating what i heard from dtsc. and men you want to defer to dtsc in the brief as i said earlier than i say that it is committed to ensuring all residents remain safe. remain meaning they are currently safe. is tht planning departmenty and suspicion the neighbors. >> clearly dtsc is work nothing this neighborhood around the issues that neighbors identified. not just in rep to the project but broad low in this neighborhood they will continue and they have testify third degree than i will continue to do this work. >> one reasons why the government witness got more time is buzz they were not answering our questions. i asked, do you believe the

niches are currently safe. yes , i followed the advise. yes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. i president swig anything further. >> okay. no further questions and thank you. we will hear from dbi you have one minute. they did seed timeto dph. welcome mr. green. >> good evening. commissioners. methodue green from dbiil be brooefr i yoeldzed met time. dbi believe it reviewed properly by argue agencies and issued correctly. affordable housing was approved properly and permit issue proper low we believe there is no machine fest injust nor has new information come to light. 30 seconds. >> for this reason dbi urges you

to deny the rehearing request and allow the permit to be lifted so further review can take place i'm available for questions. >> thank you. >> i don't see questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from dtsc. >> mr. shaw is here. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. thank you for opportunity to provide a breeing to the board of appeals you consider the appellate's request for rehearing for their pel of the building per mitt of 2550 irving. we have testified that the 2550 irving street site is in the i significant source of pc e to the community. risk to the neighboring residents to the north are low to significant that is -- within the state and federal risk

management range. out of caution, and response to the communal concerns we recommended follow up vapor sampling and indoor area to area north of 2550 irving. regarding irving street and the building permit the subject of this hearing we approved a response plan for planned housing development including i vapor mitigation system or vents. the vents will protect the residence denials of the planned housing within an engineer subslab system for any potential vapor move freshman below the graunld. vent is an effective remedy that is common law used to keep people safe. the plan development will not prevent investigation and remediation as present to address pc e. we provided written addressing

the rehearing. the appellatey broef in spchlt rehearing acert this is there was an imbudget of time for their testimony, tts says equal time was allowed per presentation and the time was from questions from the board. in addition. the appellate's broef in support of the rehearing request imploy this is new information has in to light in the form of indoor air report which was posted public low before the appeal hearing. in fact the data in the report was reviewed by representatives months before the hearing. and was covered in their appeal broef and the hearing itself. of the indoor air report should not affect the issuance of the permit because were previously testify thered is in primary

source of pc e on the site and the planned development on the site will not prevent investigation and remediation appropriate to address pc e. will continue to over see investigation and remediation as appropriate. for areas of 2550 block higher soil vapor was detected. thank you and i'm available for to address questions for the board. >> thank you. president swig. elephant in the room is the manifest injustice is the dtsc conscious low and purposely not cooperated with and provide requested information to the appellate? there was pretty strong words

used with regard to the behavior them and their with the implication that the manifest injustice was caused by a purposeful effort by the dtsc to cover up and not provide information to the appellate to the public and to all interested parties in this. pretty strong stuff. right? and that's why i call it the elephant in the room. now, we asked i believe the end of a the demolition hearing, that the dtsc coprit and make themselves visible to the public. so, and -- they claim not. this is another part of the manifest injustice claim. i would like would you comment

respond to the strong charges and the strong statements about cover up. and none coprescription and unprofessional behavior that's my view i'm not accusing you that's what i heard it is irrelevant important for this commission and the public to hear your response. to such strong charges. why absolutely. thank you president swig. on march 20, of 2023 early 30 year, our upper management and todd did meet with the msna and they had communicated concerns about the site. we had committed in that hearing that we would conduct and character deep subsurface

investigation below the former dry cleaner. we committed to doing this and so as a result of this meeting, we did commit to conducting the additional investigation. and that's what this additional investigation this we did not we did over saw over the summer. and so -- if anything we that -- was a result of communication with msna. there was several e mails we also received in addition to this from don moore, paul hoseman, and -- in fact on may 9 todd sacks met with them as well. we were in communication with them. we did commit to considering msna's request.

for this additional investigation. so i think we did fulfill this request. the most importantly, the charge is -- that, dtsc did not fully investigate a proper clean up. we know this i money we know based on testimony this the whole region is contaminated. i think everybody is finally come to the comfort level this this site is in the the source of the contamination but rather a victim of another source of the contamination and there will always be risk of shifting sands because it is built on sand. but there is the manifest

injustice seems to be the full story about dtsc over site implementation of a proper clean up did not exist. would you respond to that? this is false. we this oversight. did additional investigation was first all, we had already added -- characterized the site. our standard guidance is to have full vapor density every 10,000 square feet the sampling or the 2550 or they completed was one in then00 over the guidance. and this additional

investigation. we had characterized it the question this we had committed to and this hearing with conduct deeper investigation of this site. what we did was a different technology that msna would have preferred. but we did conduct the deemer investigation. it is technology [inaudible]. so they committed had done that. and yea we were not trying to cover up if anything this technology is used to find the source. which we did not find. >> your issue is than i preferred one method you preferred another and you believe in this your method of investigating clean up was adequate even though they did

not they don't agree. is this your position? >> correct. >> okay. >> commissioner lopez. thank you. president swig and thank you mr. shaw for being with us. just to pull on that thread, the president swig was exposing there. there is testimony this -- we are being duped because the dtsc is in the consistent in this site via the guidelines and standards and methods applied at other cites? we heard with the i appreciate that i don't think this this point was included in the appellate's brief but it was displayed during their testimony that the -- the slide you saw with the green highlighted

language. planning to other things. averaging and sampling with the mull sample size not significant. may be on this point since -- you made have been exposed this evening. we don't have drill down on that but generally poke to the allegations of inconsistencyys. the agency's guidelines and the standards and methods applied in cites. >> why i have i would like to defer this question to our branch chief who is on the zoom line hor tense why. if you could on and answer. why i'm on the line, can you hear me? >> yes, >> welcome >> good evening. thank you for having me. i want to say we follow our guidance the statement we are

not following our guidance is not true. we publish guidance documents and we do recognize there they nor prittive they allow case by case determination. if you look in the guidance, for example page 50 of the document itself. does site that it is based on the site investigation and characterization of risk and the technologies available to shape the goals. yes, well is [inaudible] 2550 however the source is not confirmed. one of the recommendations that msna repeatedly asked is this we install vapor extraction. they can be expensive. when you don't have a critical mass to treat. you one of the members of the previously testified -- you

will -- originally -- the beginning find that you address the soil vapor and then short low after find it is recontaminatedure not treating the source. yes, we agree with others at lenny this testified we prefer [inaudible] and normally would. there is no not it is not an alternative at the time because of the costs and don't know for certain this is where the source is. everything we come up with date points to it is not 2550 is not the source. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. and just to follow up -- on your branch chief's response. which i direct to her.

at the previous hearings it was stated that the while people were talking about doing soil vapor extraction, after february. the process that dtsc took was more expensive than soil vapor extransaction now you are saying soil vapor is too expensive. can you clarify. >> i don't remember. the exact detail. i don't remember the details of this testimony. yes this we did employ an alternative to characterize the site. at the time, when we did the further characterization using nip. activelies to identify a source. the characterization asked of us was different than this. it was not necessary low to

install the soil vapor ecstrakzp traction at this time. i don't believe. it would not been a good option to do at that time. >> thank you we did not know where the source was. and you know you need ton where the source is to install the wells. >> and your clothe in the room stated that will in answer to president swig, this msnamented one approach and you decided on another approach? at the same time mrs. calvalwas quoted earlier saying, i can say high priority for you to satisfy the concerns about the community. if you know, what the think think went into not under take

the prop the community south since you were interested in satisfying the occurrence of the community and going in another direction. can you just state what the benefits are of doing what you did rather than what the community wanted. i don't know the context the chief said this made that statement it is difficult to understand what was prompted this. it means it has been made clear the concerns is soil vapor introugz in the neighboring communities. or the residence denials in the neighboring right next to 2550. i thought that was and the other torstart remead or start extracting the soil vapor. with this said i assume would be identify the source if you don't know where the source is.

so that's what i would understand i don't know in what context she stated that. >> i listen was not asking to explain her statement i wanted get a sense as to the prop that you took after february why this approach was better than the other you were giving me your best answer. >> thank you. >> thank you. i don't see further questions you can be seated we will hear from the department of public health. >> dph is taking two minutes of the time of welcome. >> i'm brian casey work in the san francisco department of public health the site

assessment and mitigation or ma her program caseworker for the development at 20 if i have irving from sudden front health code recalls 22a and b. the ordinance requires oversight for characteringization and mitigation of substance in soil, vapor and ground water for projects located within specific areas of the stele and county of san francisco. during the hearing of 230 there are on august 16 i reviewed how it is applicant is in compliance with the program and they proceed with the development. i stated our program through review of the documents submitted to date and approval of the health station on the site permit determined applicant met all requirements to protect public health and safety. since this hearing no new or different material factsor circumstances have, risen in

this case that changed the determination the applicant met all site permit requirements. based on our review the new data collected does in the change the original determinationa all data indicate conformance with the program requirements and two, continue protection of on site work and the neighboring community. >> dph understanding the investigation of pc e impacts in the area are on going under a separate voluntary clean up case academy independent low from the development on irving. i'm available for questions and so is my program manager on zoom >> we have a question from president swig. you get the tough question asked during the first hearing. and -- that is you firefightered that everything is cool, right? >> all right.

is it and there is an issue of manifest injustice it there is in new information we heard it all before. uh-huh. >> although the appellate would beg to differ based on their testimony tonight. the real tough question is, okay. you reported everything is cool. now your answers live in this building do you wantior aunt to live in that building you comfortable she will be safer or cousin or brother's sister or you know what i'm saying. >> yes. >> is there man fast injustice here would be and this is nile view to the appellate what is machine fest injustice. to the residents of those folk who is milive in this building. that's where it is. so, is there manifest injustice based on the testimony that was

not offered. based on the previous process is there machine fest injustice to those persons who will be affected in the issuance of a permit and the development of the building based on it? >> so, you are referring to someone i know living in the planned development or in the neighboring building in your mind's eye and say my relative and friends is going to live in this building. and is there machine fest injustice created as as a result of the previous hear to that person buzz that person really is the result of us issuing approving a site permit and the welling it go forward. right >> they will live there as a result of the building going up. think in those terms and comment

on what you testified. >> i told you tough question >> it is a tough question. i would say no based on my past experience in environmental consulting my experience reviewing the data. my discussions with dtsc. experience on other similar cases that are program specific. and in this case you know we have our program element. and dtsc has their element and we are not crossing the boundaries we rerue what they do and staying aprized. i would say no manifest injustice. >> thank you. >> okay. i don't see further questions. so -- you can be seated. we are moving on to public comment. >> is there anyone in the room that would like to comment? if you do, lineup against the wall and if the first person can

approach and after you are done give the speaker card to alec. we will move to the people on zoom after we cover 3 minutes. in up to the motorcycle row phone? thank you. >> and after you are done fill out a card. >> yea. this is not to relitigate the science is whether the last hearing was i willful playing field if left unchallenged people the handled fell in fwhlding. am be harmd and some of the data office not new. butt question was if there was new evidence. and not just there was not new data but there were new interpretations and

presentations and than i didn't follow their guidance in presenting that data to you. this to me is the manifest injustice of that's the mislead thanksgiving happened here. there are facts and guidances on how you present those facts. and they didn't follow their guidances about how to present the facts. so -- that is the manifest injustice. the other question you raise and i nut about this this morning was the limits or contranlts that could put on a permit. i know this in terms of s bhshgs 35 we are not asking for anything different than the other percentel in this mroum. the market rate parcel across the street is as much inform this as this one is. and -- making the permit i'm thinking become to the first hearing we talked about trees

and the possibility of is there kinds of accountability that can be placeod issue thanksgiving permit. reporting back. so far they have in the proven themselves to be a part in to us in sharing data and sharing collaborate with us on cleaning up this project. and that's what i like to see here. i don't want to see it irrelevant not builted i want it built safely. and when than i say 2550 is in the a source again e they are misleading you. i forget which point on this slide that call its out. you don't have to have it be a primary source to do the proper remediation that we are asking for. >> the cost to dot right thing. we didn't want it go in for in

litigating this. we would have rather seen the money. than i spent on litigation in doing the right thing 2 years ago. not my fundament they chose the wrong pregnant path. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. kathleen kelly in support of the appeal we are not asking you to call balls and strikeos science we are asking the testing requested by you and the niche in february why was not this done. no collaboration with the neighborhoods that's why and there is no place we can take this. no line between the permit and the ability to clean this up because they are linked to vote, no. is to accept and approve contamination on the site

entering your public health. they will not step up and do more we wish they could but they will not. the testing they did why was this more money. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm mike can comboer i have been to a couple of the hearing and as member who lives in the city and in the neighborhood. quibbling over techicalities here. if there is an issue in the your there should be further test who did the testing at the site if than i went down 90 feet why did they not go in the street where the pipes and are floudz. why are we not taking the steps to go 90 feet down there? if well is a problem there those fumes will go and waft in this property. you can have equipment to suck

things out if it it is going up. others will be affected. second, when i left the left meeting i thought, okay we therein is a problem with dry cloning. in the 90's epa started regulating dry cleaners. they started changing and modifying the amendments for the clone air act. if this is going on why are we saying no more dry cleaners in the city that are not eastbounding open friendly. create eco friends low places. if in want it done the old way ship if if the country it is in the in the population everyone is affected boy it and the fumes are going down and getting in groundwater. so, feels to me let's finds where the source is and clean it and up build it instead of in 10 years we are getting sued boy

people getting cancer and we are having to take down a building. >> on behalf the housing okay coalition. >> why certain testimony who's testing do i treft. the state agency with coming up or a neighborhood group that blocked tried stall had every step of the way. through litigation height and bulk objections to financing and the city and now this. let's listen to the experts and stop this abusive process now. because this is all to block

affordable house and we continue. it is clear and we need to move on. thank you. i'm here in spchlt appellate i'm a left lanesed architect and w on projects like this in my experience and i say i never met an agency that i did in the like. sept for dtsc. this is a unique problem and the site itself is contaminated. pushed forward to this commission. to consider example the source this they are saying does in the exist that refer to the primary source. not talking about the secondary source. we learned a lot about that. left august 16th.

and secondary source is as bad and this is when we are trying to get rid of the second thing is this the permit holder attorneys mentioned that -- that -- the -- the -- um -- appellate does not have a problem with the system. vin system according with the guidance regulations is an interim solution. not a permanent solution fr. an my perspective the building there a human years and interim solution below a concrete slab pierced by drills piers is this going to be suitable solution for the future residents? i think of my end from at nomad sighingary that died of blood cancer. blood cancer is a cancer related

to pc e. when you look at the cancer cluster map, and have than i asked the question, have you had cancer case in the neighborhood? i never heard this before. i remembered and urge you to, prove a rehearing for this appeal. thank you. where thank you. anyone else in the room like to comment? okay we'll move to zoom. hear from tomasita. go ahead. >> thank you. i'm in support of the appellate i'm this is low income housing budget. i can't remember what will happen at hunterary point and treasure island.

>> they don't have it cloned up before the construction is done. and so i ask you, remember this we all know we know what happened in murnt everhunter's point. and people are suffering from cancer and the same with treasure island. the tenants there are sick. and so please, grant the appeal and have a thorough notice and -- the people clean it up and safe way before the construction is done. and i do agree with the person who said the pipes you excuse is you don't know the source this is in the an excuse if there is a problem needs to cloned up before construction. thank you. >> thank you.

>> now hear from renee >> thank you. >> everybody i agree with everyone this said the comments for the appellate and support the appellate. this is a travesty. this is i waste in my waste of time so many because the dt sd the owner could have didn't right thing from the beginning i appreciate president swig's comment would you want your dear 1s to live in this building i think the answer should have been no, buzz it is a hazzard t. is a very good thing we are not imply in still go [inaudible] the lu. because if this helps where people down the road have cancer and dying, you know should be held responsible for this than i will not be than i are say they are right and they are wrong. i'm sorry it take up you were time i'm in support of the

appellate and remediate thanksgiving and giving a rehearing. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> now the number ending 2801. go ahead. >> can you hear me. >> i live newscast neighborhood. and i support the appeal, you can imagine but i want to be have my neighbors and myself protected i v know so men in the neighborhood who had answer everkarngs and why don't they want to clone it up. and find the source? that's it. thank you. why thank you. >> adam michaels. go ahead. >> good evening temperature is in the person in the new building who you should be most worried about the low protect the people it is the people in the neighboring buildings like me who don't have any mitigation system, in variable barrier and the left time they tested they

found 4 times low pc e the screening level the teched. i locked up on machine fest injustice and means something obviously unfair and when i listen to the hearing left time, i immediately came to the conclusion it was unfair because there was so much time given to myth to talk. and yet he may have been asking more question this is is unfair if don were and 11 emdon't have a chance to give their side. and i think as commissioner trasvina said too mump begin to smith. every government official who come up says i believe what the expert said. >> and nobody knows the cites better than moore who said that dtsc is pulling i fast one using the wrong tests. i money the branch chief said

that the systems can be expensive just because of the cost sheets. if the costs are important why did than i do a more expensive fest then and there the one this was requested? and commissioner asked that of the branch chief and could in the answer it. this it is going on for years this they keep talking and talking and they mislead and don't answer questions and some how they convinced some of you this 2550 is in the a source. i don't think they proved that at all and didn't work with msna as you requested. they don't respond it letters than i say we'll get back and don't. and the levels at 2550 were so highway they had to evacuate the upstairs of the police credit union it was uncyst for human commercial use. let, lone residential use.

so i would ask you i appreciate that the board is so sharp they see throughout bs and i think this with smith men going rogue i don't know why he does in the want to clone update site. heave -- so please don't pass the buck we have nowhere tolls go this is importantful thank you. thank you. we will hear from robert. go ahead. >> i'm richard i live close to the upon 2550 irving i support pelt for rehearing.

and public low die of cancer or having cancer right now. s a health care professional specialist i urge the commissioners to pay attention to the maps. msna shows residents with cancer neurological. due to cancer [inaudible]. it is not a coincidence, does not moved on and cause of the cancer at best. don't allow short cut for the construction goal of health care of future residence denials and the surrounding resident.

dot right thing and should not be the excuse to sweep health care issue under the rug. thank you. why thank you. jessica, go ahead. >> >> you need to unmute yourself. the next call and are come

become we will tried twice. call us by phone, 669-900-6833. enter the id access code: 848 3864 2804 . >> we fwl at this time phone number ending 8640. go ahead. >> 8640. >> go ahead. >> i'm john i live in the neighborhood. i do support the rehearing because of i number of reasons one of the important reasons to me is the absence of president swig at the last hearing. this although i think he had a chance to review the material covered we lacked his questions. i have a feeling commenter in this hearing would have been more balanced if he had been

there. and asked those questions is something he did in the have and would in a rehearing. >> also basically the imbudget in the testimony that i was well and spoke to them as in the previous one. in the public comments. was simple low that the kind of presentation this dtsc came up with and there are multipleicides designed, i believe and i understand the commissioner asking questions based on this they created confusion which was their intent of i think this simple low the injustice part of this was that there was no balancer chance to rebut or no opportunity for our experts to have i chance to question what the inconsistencyys was. and00 autoother thing i think this although it was discuss in the previous hearings this probably this is the learning are issue this should not be

sent to the board of permit appeals butt left resource we don't have anybody tolls go to but you to rectify this injustice and give an opportunity for equity in presentation of both sides of the question. >> and so i support a rehearing of the appeal. >> thank you. >> . unmute yourself. >> hi. can you hear me. >> thank you. i, pol jiez for the technical. i'm robert, and i'm -- i ask the board reject the rehearing request. this is an abecause of sudden front's appeal's process. and i think the process was right when he said the appellates propose this every step of the way and than i will

continue to post the project with every opportunity given. here we are seeing that it is not a surprise when san francisco allows for endless entitlement appeals that a problem the project will continue to use them and establish the pretext to use them. it is not a surprise that the state of california legislator is now going to take away san francisco's ability to abuse post entitlement permits starting next year. there this project illustrates the press just have costs to projects and this is to affordable housing financing is extremely complex and limited. i advise to you reject the appeal and listen to the experts from the state and the

department of health. >> thank you y. thank you. there is someone, staff. are you here to provide public comment? staff? >> yes, sorry about this i'm ralph. i want to call in and encourage this board to reject the rehearing request. i would like to associate myself with the prior caller comments those areapt. i want to remind the board this -- what we heard tonight, there is no new evidence of things presented. and the -- justice issue was race by the rehearing requestors. is wron of the outcome of the decision. or the previous decision this

was made. and -- that would be injustice itself if -- simple low the -- process of the board appeals is, is -- questioned. which this seems to be the only question than i are having here. i encourage the city and the neighbors to continue to -- investigate the source of the contamination and this does not will be helped by the project moving forward. so, folks should the be welcoming this project. for all of the affordable reasons. but also just because it will help the investigation go forward it make the community a safer place. thank you. >> jessica, go ahead.

[inaudible]. you are unclear, do you have 2 devices on the phone and the xurth? i'm on the phone. there is a lot of background noise. you have your computer going at the same time? >> no. my computer is off. >> okay. we will do our best to hear you. >> [inaudible]. go in a quiet room? let me -- go ahead we will do our best >> can you hear me now? >> yes. >> i wanted tell that

>> [inaudible] as well and i want to see it [inaudible] say this -- that [inaudible] having this appeal [inaudible]. i see a hand raised he is an agents for the appellate exit notice there are 3 [inaudible]. is there someone else? raising their hand? weer public comment now. is there fourth public comment on this item? i don't see any hands raised. so commissionerings this merit is submitted.

>> with your permission commissioners i will get it started i think it important for you to hear from me. had i been here and i, apologize what i would have said. i would have said -- that i was really upset at the dtsc for not behave nothing i way we asked them to behave. i valid said, this i done appreciate the electric of coprescription and transparency from the dtsc this was requested as a direct requirement i believe, of in the first the site permit hearing and this is -- there would be openness to the public. to reasonably accept reasonable questions or schedules in i reasonable fashion. and i done get a sense this

cooperation existed and would have said i wasup set about this. okay. and this still bothers me. however, at the hearing on the same direction i was not involved to be provocative. i would not have supported a continuance. i thoughted testimony was full. when i would have suggested in moving board deny the appeal -- is -- i would have done this. i would have put terms and const. that to protect the public. the same time of terms and conscience i tried the first time. with this, i like to ask quill

of mr. hillous if he my terms and conscience this i would have asked for in the first hearing would be reasonable because. in looking at aside the new information i will put that aside. and so if we were to determine tone it was machine fest injustice and i'm weighing that. and we had another hearing. and we heard a rehashing of the same information, again. rehashing and smashing. and we would have some to the end and yours truly would have said, based on the same testimony not there is no new information. and we would have denied the

appeal and issued the permit. site or the site permit p. with the term and conscience related to a full clean up and proper clean up of the site under the supervision of the proper authority which would be dbi, health department, plan and dtsc is this a term and condition that would stand? can we do this? i believe you cannot. you cannot add a term or condition to this permit. that would not otherwise be applicable to other permits >> yes. this is where we were before when you were not here. i watched it. >> in the demolition. right. >> and i think at that point i suggested this indeed we would

even without an sb35 -- compliance. need to be compliant. if -- we would heard this same thing related to a house. a new apartment building. this did in the fall under the sb35 umbrella, if there was an issue related to a -- pc e toxic substance something poisoning the ground. we would probably said, okay it needs to comply related build and new building the problem is this there is rotten stuff under here so, yes, we will we will approve deny the appeal approve the permit urn the condition there be a full clone clean up and sb tlifld be satisfied.

because we would do it under normal s. so i don't understand. >> i think that is discretionary you are taking a discretionary action. the sponsor is to comply with the law the model ordinance we work with dph, to figure out when that compliance is. it is whatever any other developer would have to follow. it is the law. that's when they need to do and i think we are comfortable they are doing it. and abiding by the ordinance which is the city's law to ensure that you know, projects are built on cites that are clone. and so -- they are following this lu. what sb35 says you can't do. or the planning commission or any other discretionary body in the city is saying you gotta do

something beyond the luor we will take a floor off this building we continuing is too talleen though it complies with the zone nothing place. that's when sb35 says and they at this point is prioritizing affordable housing projects we are not meeting our goals around affordable housing we are short. we take it and not get in discretionary processes where the planning commission or you or anybody else are adding on requirements that are beyond the law. does not mean the board of supervisors the state can't enact new lus that require higher levels of remeadingiation or clean up under the current luthey are abiding by the law and the what the act is telling them >> president swig. city attorney would like to

address your question. >> i believe hat president asked was whether the appeal could be denied but conditioned impose. and i just want to be clear that in order to impose conditions on a permit the board would have to grant the appeal. denying a permit with. jue are right. >> always make this mistake i done it for 8-10 years. but yes. in moving the permit forward i will get over my mistake and moving the permit forward as as a result of doing at this time proper way, that the terms and conditions is where i geta. i get hung up on. i want had project it go forward. i see it complies. it is -- it is if there was not the contamination threat in the

grounds, i'm not a scientist i don't know i have to listen. to both sides i know if i building builted on this site it would be okay and pass planning muster and everything would be fine. now, take the sb35 away. if this building was being placeod a site, had was not sb35 and somebody came enemy and said, this is a dirty site. meaning there is stuff in the we would -- allow the permit to move forward. notice i dodged. we would allow it to move forward and a condition protecting the future occupants of building and attempt to fierce of community that at least this site would be cleaned up. all right. and if we have the next hearing

and hear the same stuff over and over gwen we are going to arrive if we determine there is manifest injustice. and we would arrive at the same point this we would have left week i think. and did. where commissioner trasvina said commissioner swig is in the here and can't move forward with out his vote and thought fist commissioner swig was there last week we probably would got to of this point where the building is okay. it is the soil that sucks. okay. and we would place a term and condition as we would on any building and like situation. sb35 or not we want to holds somebody issue countable for cloning up the soil. so it does not harm the people who are going to live in the

building or in the immediate area. forget the region and the neighborhood and all the rest of the garbage going of that's not what this is about this is about this building which i would like to see built. not at the risk of poisoning and killing people >> i think the problem with that theory is there being be another site on the other side of the city that has the same soil condition they are complying with the luand the rules and regulations of dph the ordinance and dtsc buzz this project was in the appealed to the body they are of less you are saying than i are more healing risk then and there this site. so i think what s b live is saying he is the lu. here is how they should act under certain conditions. in when they would require. they are requiring it. because someone is appeal thanksgiving and raising issues sb35 say us can't add additional conditions.

to that. . the law is the law should do what the law is doing. if you believe that the under lying soil in the case don't require enough work by dph we should change the law. this is the appropriate place to do it noon project by project basis based on appeal. that is the issue sb35 is getting at. the height limit is too tall in this neighborhood. xument to reduce the project by a floor. that's your we should reduce all at 40 feet instead of 65 feet not doing them one off because of an appeal >> let me recharacterize the again. i personal low i said this from the first hearing i want this building built. this is a housing emergency in the low income sector of the city. no argument. we got a few other houses that

are built mission a square not this don't fit in this category. i'm worry body low income stuff there is an emergency the project should guest built. however, what is the -- what is if we went to another hearing and determined machine fest injustice and got to the same point that was existed in the left hearing. issue of acounterability the issue of make sure the people live in this building and immediately next door who might be affected by the construction. how do we holds the project experience and the city >> harm and cancer causing

situations. >> you heard the testimony i are not doing that. and dph but your concern there are issues brud in this neighborhoods the appropriate way to address that is not through this project for the project. buff holding dph, countable. having the board call a hearing around this. having dph call a hearing around this. it is not just this site we heard where there are concerns. it is like any other issue in i neighborhood where there is concern and there are city efforts or state efforts that to work with them. there are other venues that are more appropriate. then and there this board to address some of those learning are occurrence the neighborhoods have. >> yea i'm still i'm sorry.

if we have another hearing we will end up where these folks where left week when i was not here. and -- circling around the assurance of the accountability. this is -- that is where i'm throwing the burden become on to you. who run the planning department and mr. green and dbi and the health department to make sure how do we make sure move thanksgiving forward and -- approve thanksgiving permit it should be approved. >> absolutely. >> how do you hold you accountability to protect the public. why you are asking you to engage request our fellow agencies to

have additional hearingos had they are doing to talk to supervisor engardio's office. a hearing at the board or committee of the board to look. i think that is an appropriate venue and ookz the city can take if not if folks don't believe that dtsc is doing what they are charged to do. >> i don't necessary low believe than i are novelty doing had they are doing. but or not acting appropriate low. but again if there is concern boy the neighbors we should listen and take appropriate action the appropriate action is in the rejektd or add conditions to an affordable housing permit on one sight you heard a lot b. the appropriate action is big are then and there this. to work with dpsc and the supervisor with addressing those issues the neighbors have. >> they are doing that there is concern than i are not. to your satisfaction or

appropriate low this is an issue that dph can cull a hears the board of supervisors can call a hearing on. get answeros that. you will not get them by rejecting this permit. >> whether we do it or take the action to denight tonight's appeal or go and have another hearing we'll end up in the same support. i think. >> based on -- the experience. >> is the appropriate action therefore if we end up in the same spot to write a letter from this board to planning, healing, dpsc and the board of supervisor ers to the indicate that this board is very concerned about this project and the accounts abltd to the public with regard

to health and future project this is fall under the sb35 and other projects or we will just satisfy our own egoes >> this is an action you can take. that is an action you can take. jue think it will be an effective action to actually catch planning, dpi, health attention that they should probably pay attention. >> sure. a board hearing or hearing -- in front of the healing commission this is looking at the issues, i think most low the issues surround dtsc and dph they are related soil not planning issues the height of the building or the building looks like. but does in the mean we are not happy to engage and narcotic discussions with the parties. >> i hope you understand i'm

serving multiple masters here. >> you know we are serving the mavrogeneser who isy requesting the satisfaction of housing emergency by building. a building and serving the masters who are the citizen of san francisco who we serve to protect their health. and so that is irrelevant hard. i suggest the same to the neighbors. than i have to i think they are doing it is they spent energy in resources, challenging this project. probably not the best venue to get at the issues they have. with the soil conscience more present to press them and talk to dph and their board member. thank you very much for your conversation and testimony on this matter >> thank you. why appreciate it.

>> commissioners, i think i exposed my thoughts on this. i think that i'm not sure that there was full ma manifest injustice. but we all can discuss this now. i don't think there was new information that was presented. if we, if we do choose to have a rehearing i honest low believe we will end up in the same spot. and i think this there will be somebody who will say deny it or somebody will say uphold the appeal. gee whiz. you know. and -- and i believe this there will be a split and i do believe that ultimately and because we can't place a terms and conditions on this type of permit we are going to be sometime ed in efforts to put

forth accountability on this. and therefore, you know i don't want a strong position or i don't see a strong issue on manifest injustice and there is in the new information provide in the my view. then i don't think this we have a rehearing because i don't see the benefit of -- having it move forward that's my position and i love to start with my next door neighbor here who will give us his thoughts. >> thank you. and you know i agree that this is a very, very complicated top and i can my comments the left hearing dealt with this we have a mess that needs to be cloned up and we have a permit and frankly i don't think it is irrelevant voluntary what the permit is for whether for affordable housing a lot or a little housing. it would be a permit to do

something of the site regardless. we are not weighing priorities here. or i don't think we should be. when we look to the issue analysis of the permit and the case we are in. i think -- comment that we will end up in the same place is almost the conclusion that show there is is nothing manifest low injust to get to the same place means nothing is different and the prior facts in new information we hear gets us to the same place it can't be wrong for us to end up in the same place each time. since we were playing a bit in the hype theft cal world about the left hearing. i don't think i would have supports your continues and not from sb35 status although

relevant. we nod have to gone through that analysis. because we would have done a very poor job of crafting a condition. of because we are lame people dealing with scientific issue. and the entire fight that we are having now is about who is deciding whether or not the appropriate standards are being up. and if we were to hold the city accountsable we would have gone back it would not have been us. be clear f. someone thought tht wrong the our dictates being philidelphia would end up in [inaudible]. we have no jurisdiction. even in on the state toxicology

cleanups. on things where we do have jurisdiction on tree case and it is department of public works we work to make sure we hold those accountable. that's where we have jurisdiction. where we don't [inaudible]. so that's one point. but upon what does it mean it fully clone the site. the answer is that does not exist in the role world. because one, medical cue not cloned up one molecule is also not dangerous. and so i don't end up in this battle of the experts and no matter the circumstance. and whether we dot test this is the equal to x-ray or the test this is equal to the mri.

i went through why i thought we have willed them and under our examination they falterd and contradicted themselves. the state agency is -- throwing out wholesale scientific ethics and sexually of when they are charged to do by the state of california to accept this there is manifest injustice in this case. i met a lot of public serve annuals. whole 7 in duties and that's not the individual circumstances we are talking hum folks have we

talked to so far. it -- think that is what is going on here. long way of going around this, i think there is -- lots of fuzz on both sides of the argument we asking about examples guidance was not followd and they said the response a lot of truth to what they said. so they can be used in the

circumstances. can is a big word it not must be use today the best thing to use today can't be used.

or the bounds of evidence that could not have been presented previouslying we give rise to rehearing under our rules and provisions. >> thank you. >> commissioners have comments on this. why we will work down the line the commissioner trasvina. can follow and -- and mr. vice president can be the clone up >> i figured that's when we were doing. >> thank you to everybody who came out tonight and thank you to my fellow commissioners. i'm -- i think very unfortunate in my opinion this the bases for the manifest injustice was not well -- stated by the appellates

tonight. but i did hear several reasons in public comment this i -- i believe -- could present i manifest injustice. on that's when we are tasked decide in the hearing tonight. we don't have to find they colluded with the developer. or anything along the lines to find it tonight. the niches being get screwed over here and you know >> 2 things earlier today. i did ask a lot of questions on august 16th no request of this about this. and i certainly asked more questions than i asked of the appellates of the august 16th hearing and the reason for this

is because i was less sure about when they were presenting. what the appellates presented on august 16th and spirit everexperteds was strit forward to me and what is presented the the left hear and tonight is less strit forward. what i heard in public comment the dtsc did in the mote with the neighbors prior to the august 16th hearing and met with them the afternoon before. and told them at this hearing which was in written public comment this -- there was no new information and presented lots of new information the following day at our hear thanksgiving is

injust and presented i result this -- was not warranted. i believe this it is dtsc presented significant data -- despite the fact we had hearing months prior to this we asked them to come to. 2 or few are days before the left hearing the appellates did not have the chance to address them in the briefing was significant in this case. so that the even the public time to address poils of data in the 36 hour before a hearing begins. and finally, as commissioner trasvina mentioned earlier the proposed cancer cluster monopoly we heard ideas of a cancer cluster in hearings this map was new to me today this is

extremely concerning. and i don't understand how it is not concerning to anyone. this is extremely aliving room to me i think it deserves further consideration and i -- could not in good conscious not give that further consideration. i mean telling you know, i hear had commissioner eppler says about you know this potential low not the right venue. i don't completely disagree with that. problem is i don't see where else this can go. and when i see the need for here is -- somebody to stand up and fight for the residence denials of the sunset and i'm not elsewhere. if this is the only possible path forward and make sure

proper clean up guess i'm willing to fight for this this and vote for a motion to rehear this even though this has taken up a huge amount public resources and our time the body's time. city's everybody's time. including the appellate and the neighbors. the fact the theirs show up and consistent in their messaging, are and -- the site everything that is presented the hours of testimony and the pages of data. . to me speaks 2 big a risk to be taken. il pass to commissioner trasvina. thank you. why thank you children lemberg and concur in your comments and presentations president swig i thank you you for setting the tone. for this hearing at the out set

and the comments. i hoped that and still feel this having your active participation in the hearing makes i difference. as why i sought to continue this matter so you would be here and while some may view this as futile we will have the same vote if we do this over temperature is this or ref warding the stubbornness. of -- the developers. we could have done had could have been done a long time ago. frankly, so disturbed by the governmental agencies not only here but throughout. we started off this hearing tonight with i planning department and its brief. say, the standards new or different material fact this is is the not standard.

standard is am in extraordinary case. suspect this an extraordinary case. we are talking health talking about karjs. in the talking about a single tree. not talking about a deck. in the talking about an individual's neighbor's privacy. not talking about an individual's view of the bay or golden gate bridge not i window or driveway all those are personal considerations in the regular cases this is an extraordinary case. if you electric for manifest inj. look at hb97. the cancer cluster map. manifest. clear or obvious not eye or mind. injustice? that left untaken is an injustice. and the planning department says, well if there is a problem the niches should be talking to

this combon this one the board of proirzs and the health department. the planning department at the previous hearing made clear they turn a blind eye to the supervisor. the mar resolution an um vote. take this action. behalves the responsibles of planning? to not our problem dawk to dtsc and they asked. says, i can say a high priority for you to satisfy the concerns of the community. does the community appear the community is satisfied? there are concerns about health that is a priority for us. we had an unprepared witness at the first hearing. we difference of views they told us this they went for the more expensive approach. the longer approach. they did in the satisfy the

community. is the communities request reasonable? it is reasonable. i don't really care what else they have been doing or when they consider. i don't consider the00 eye consider the nature of the complaints by the association and the neighbors. the testimony of mr. michael's father in lu. other individuals who come here. fitsing cancer that is reasonable that is extraordinary. namust be address today has in the been. and now we get to the -- the sense of -- well, we told you or told the community that safety their satisfaction is a high priority. we have the hearing and said. don't worry just demolition permit you saw other transits

down the road now, well than i had i hearing before. than i don't get to bring it up again. and -- we expected this president swig said expected things to take place in february and they everyone acknowledged those things could have been done and 10 away the the remaining issue. down the we have not had that. we had dtsc. the departments say not our fault go there. and this is appropriate low before us and the notion this we are americans attorneys we are unable to evaluate experts and competing experts that's what appellate judges do this all the time. trial judge dos this.

lawyers take deposition. question, scientific and other experts we are capable of hearing from various experts weighing the testimony. and making i decision i would say in conclusion i say we have the showing. it is time we did this does in the merit that the chemical is elsewhere.

i acknowledged it is on the premesis. is it only stay there and not go anywhere else? if it migrated from some place else and it can elsewhere and we have to get serious about the health of the community. developers. they may be creating. not to oppose the importance of affordable housing. they are --. need to be -- both doing their important work. to bring in new residents. and new neighbors to the community. and this would go a tremendous way of -- as -- was -- said -- by the department of the than i had 2 choices done it their way

or the neighborhoods association's way we thought they would dot neighborhood association way and yet than i did not. i'm -- frustrated by will the past everpath the will agencies have taken us and i do believe we have extraordinary case and manifest injustice and i would support i motion to grant the rehearing. >> my turn? i think one point that -- has been raised is -- um -- whether or not this body is in a position to weigh the opinions of experts.

>> i personal low have in the been convinced. i think this if i mean even the slide shown this evening pointing out the inconsistencies i did not see this in the briefing. i did not see that we had argument busy height. unequal time not the same thing as here is a summary what our experts say and why this is more

compelling than the experts the state is entrust with public safety that is a different point. than top say, we can't weigh the opinions of experts. this is not the point i make. i are not been convinced boy appellate in a clear way this it is in the present to relion our state experts for the question. >> become to the appropriate lens i think that the map that was cited before, again, you know -- reiterating the point of my fellow commissioners i saw a map from september 2020. there is there is this cancer cluster exhibits i believe from

public comment. in our files or the briefing tonight. i think it guess back to -- the points which it has been for all of the things we have not been satisfied with on the public religion aspect of their duties which i think are fir low subpar. i do thank you than i have been consistent in saying we have safe levels. this is in the the source. this will not stop remediation. these other normal means and methods we use and got testimony this evening that when i in good faith engaged both sides with these questions, layout for me what are the inconsistencies

specifically? we heard a response from the appellates when we turned to the dtsc than i said, well, our guidelines they are novelty fully prescriptive if this is when we hang our hat on is inconsistencies with guidelines that are not the iron clad must do prescriptive regulations, then, i'm sorry the bull goes to the experts that our state entrusted with public safety that's what sb live is saying, too. it is saying we can't go around the normal process if the normal process yields this result. i agree with the comments of director hillous. that it is echoing what i said

in other hearings about this not being the forum. if i remember memory serves, you know we had a comment at the previous hearing from the appellate this is we are just we are using all our options. and this is the forum we asked. why would just turn this around and say this is the only forum you have. there is the state court proceeding. well is you know the political process through the board through the mayor. we this is a public safety question. public safety things i'm not a scientist they are good political,s. we had a recall in the city of a public official over public safety. concerns. those are the types of things that get the public attention and political attention. and so -- there are those other

forums. there is voyerer requests if the al i guess dpa of cover ups if than i are there and the pelts seem sophisticated. well is ways of collecting that information. -- i have not seen evidence of this. and when hen presented before us this does not money that other i guarantee the local, state and legislator and governor if there is a cover up in the dtsc, you know, politiciansment to independent to those things. this makes them look good when than i weed out corruption. i think i'm left in the same place. well is no new evidence. this i have seen and any

argument about manifest injustice brings us back to the question we had the same conversation every time we had this hearing do we trust dtsc? that's what it boils down to. i have not for all of the issues that i seen in, hay, you know and memory service the request for public engage am notteen a condition it was something, nice if you could do this. and clearly a request was not followed through upon and the way any of us to the public this men a potential just you know -- preview. men a potential letter that we may want to -- consider. in sfrz it is issue before us

the questions of manifest injustice it boils down do we trust them and speaking for myself, in weighing the experts the competing experts i have not been convinced. >> commissioner eppler? >> thank you. i appreciate the time speaking second attempts. i appreciate commissioner lemberg's comments to mow it is in the just trusting the dtsc although in my weighing of the expert pregnancy and i agree we can do this i did provide well is a bit of additional weight on the basis of the testimony and the evidence this was provided. the questioned is do we trust the lus we have to deal with this exact circumstance? the ordinance, the state laws this deal with the same.

and that's what is going to determine whether this is done correctly or not a second time what when we ask for them to dom those other presses to make sthur is clone fidid not believe this employed issue could be done in a clean way or the process would not be followed i feel different low. i have filth in this process. and i don't thank you our stepping of the way of this would change that. in any way. because it came and up i thank you about doing this in my first testimony i didn't i have it address the cancer cluster map. i believe in was credit in the good faith because people are scared and scared buzz they are told this thing causes cancer and can and high concentration in certain area in their neighborhood. this was not offered to us in an

of brief or testimony of the pers not sworn to. and -- that does in the mean i don't give it evidence wet and i look and again i 100% believe every one of the dots to be what it proports to be. i don't know when the cases were recorded. the duration or the time people lived here i know nothing about occupations i know nothing about the prevalence of cancer outside of the blocks we can't take this as evidence because it does not show that evidence a cluster has to be district you have to be a cluster and all i have are 3 blocks i understand that this is scare and he terrible and i'm not saying it does not show this i'm not say would have goney can use this as evidence. and i can't hang i don't want us

to hang this decision on this piece of evidence that is like coming and has been able to have been presented us 3 times by the parties. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, president swiggil be brief on the left appointment. if this was the thirst everfirst time we heard of cancer in the neighborhood i say, yea, who is this who sent this we heard this from day one. we had people come before us and talk about family member and themselves. talk about people in the room have a very difficult and tragic medical conditions because of this community. the -- credit union had to shove down because of the prosecute chemical and is there. een the developers say it is on

the premesis. so this is and i don't know why we would give less weight to a member of the public why do we have the public testimony if we will not listen to it? for one and second, is -- the same token say the rule you should listen and people say should listen to the city agency and the experts. but we have experts on both sides and when we heard the experts and dtsc say, even before we got this case. public the -- community is concerned about safety is our priority. and they go off and do somethingel. we expect them to do the soil vapor extransaction and do something else. and then the board of supervisors says.

-- take this action. take action and the other thans from the planning department was that's dtsc's issue. our ordinance may be that that's not our jurisdiction. this is before us. ands this is something we can't just ignore. so i believe would the appellates met the upon standards this is an extraordinary case and we are would be right to preen vent manifest injustice guaranteeing a rehearing and let the per and the government and others see had they work oust and come back before us. >> thank you. mr. lemberg. i agree with everything commissioner trasvina said. i would like to add that i absolutely did not say we should take this map and take it at face value and believe everything it said.

i said that what was presented is alarming and deserved further consideration this is all i said. and by further consideration i mean -- further testimony, further digging into it. which is when we do at hearings that's all i wanted add. >> >> commissioner eppler. i did not money to misrepresent that i wanted make lore and express my viewos this one piece of evidence this come up the public so this it did not so we all this a more whole some conversation since we have not cross examined anybody about temperature >> commissioner lopez >> i'm good. >> say again? >> yield my time. >> okay. >> okay >> >> i'm going to ask member to make a motion one way or the

other >> i guess everybody is [inaudible] i can -- follow up. >> i -- i don't think i help to agree with a bit of everything from everybody. and i don't mean that to be can is your rear ends to say i love you. i mean i honestly hear all of your points. um -- this if this permit is if we move forward, and we have first i don't i irrelevant don't see the -- with respect to mr. trasvina, i don't see the

manifest injustice as strongly as yourself and the same with commissioner lemberg. when i do see is that well is a big hole still. instead accountability piece. which to make sure that that this area is cloned up this is the job of dtsc and nothing to do with this. something with the site and nothing to do with the site. and i think that dtsc as this project moves forward, or doesn't. i really would like to see it move forward to make sure that not only this site is clone and the entire neighborhood gives their attention and their focus and their priority of clean up. that is in the when we are talking about tonight.

we are talking about should the permit be, proveed build this build and i think it should be and don't think this adding there is enough manifest injustice or the new information to justify a new hearing if we did have a new hearing we would end up in the same spot and i say we need to move it forward it complies to the building regulations. mr. hill us nodding saying, yes, sb35 really mandates you move forward with this anyway. so i think this is when we would end up. i have to have faith this our public agency dtsc and with collaboration with dph and collaborate rigz and over site from dbi will get not only the

site cleaned up -- or under control by the time the building is built butt neighborhood in general. so that is where i am. i'm not gooing to make the motion. because i don't want to. because i would rather one of you make the motion and see where it goes i will not support a rehearing becausey don't think that there justification for it, new information and manifest injustice and also if we did we will end up in the same spot and i would be supporting the permit and i would be frustrated as mr. hillous pointses out we can't hold anybody mandate anybody to do a clean up because of sb35. so that's where i am. who wants take a first shot at a motion and see if they can move

it forward. i like to make a motion your words are cold comfort but that's where we are. i -- i would as i often agree i agree with you except for the mounting evidence. hearing after hearing after hearing of the agency not listening and cancer cluster there i will move to -- grant the request for rehearing based upon this matter being know extraordinary case and in order to prevent manifest injustice >> on this motion vice president lopez. >> neigh. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye yoochl commissioner eppler. >> no >> president swig >> no. >> so this motion failless. 2-3 do we have another motion.

>> another motion. gi will move to deny rehearing request on the basis this there is a no new evidence presented since prior hearing and insufficient evidence for manifest injustice >> okay. on this motion commissioner trs vina >> no >> commissioner lemberg >> no yoochl commissioner epilore >> yes. >> president swig >> yes. >> the question is denied and this concludes the hearing. thank you for constructed exercise i appreciate the fact that we kept this very constructive and supportive and ended our best for i difficult issue without personal -- exercises shall we say. thank you. >> and next hearing is when? >> 27th.

clear clear adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services

within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like

minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community