and chinese. they married, and they had family, and i am the product of that. growing up here in the bay area, we have some influences because it is the gateway for emigration. from many countries. you walk down the street, you are participating in that mix. in my music, i really want to express and represent that kind of topic that goes on in the streets. it is the most exciting part of being here. >> francis, thank you very much for being part of "culture wire" and thank you for being one of the great artists of san francisco. >> thank you so much.

supervisor maxwell: close the door please. thank you. welcome to land use. welcome, everyone. i'm joined with vice chair supervisor mar and member and president of the board, david chiu. i'd like to ask everyone to keep your voice down. we have a lot of information to cover today. i want to thank our clerk, and i want to thank the folks at channel 26 for bringing us live. ok, there is going to be a lot of that. the overflow room is in the board chambers, and we have

collected cards, and those cards will continue to come in, and we will call those folks. each one will be given two minutes to speak, and we will call those cards, and folks will be allowed -- we will wait on them a bit, so if they get in line before you, please be patient. it is because their name was called. so thank you. today is an important step in what has been a very long road. after many hearings and many previous adoption actions, we made it to the candlestick and hunters point shipyard redevelopment projects over the years, and after many sessions at this committee, over the last few months. today, i will ask that the entire package be forwarded to the full board. as i have said for many years -- oh, yes, i guess you could call the items first. yes. why didn't you guys say something? please call everything together. >> item 1, resolution adopting findings under ceqa guidelines

and under administrative code and in connection with the development of hunters point shipyard in candlestick point. item two, resolution urging the planning commission to recommend amendments to the general plan to an amendment to the baby hunters point redevelopment plan. item three, or events amending the general plan for the development of candlestick point and hunters point shipyard. items four, one gentleman in the house took to extend special permit processing requirements to the entire hunters point shipyard area. item five, ordinance amending the public works code to extend the special permit processing requirements to the entire hunters point shipyard area. item six, ordinance amending the building code to extend special permit processing requirements to the entire hunters point shipyard area. item seven, ordinance amending the planning code zoning map to establish the can is the point activity no special use district and hunters point shipyard special use district. i am a, ordinance amending the planning code to establish the can is the point activity no special use district in the

hunters point shipyard phase two special use district. item nine, ordinance approving and adopting the amendment to the development plan for the debut hunters point development project area. item 10, ordinance approving and adopting the amendment to the redevelopment plan for the hunters point shipyard redevelopment project area. item 11, resolution authorizing the property transfer agreement entitles them in public trust exchange and boundary line agreement with the redevelopment agency. item 12, ordinance amending the hunters point shipyard said division code pertaining to the subdivision process. item 13, a resolution approving a tax income and allocation pledge agreement with the redevelopment agency. supervisor maxwell: thank you. now i will continue. as i mentioned, we have been dealing with this issue many years, and at its core, this project is about revitalization and opportunity. with this project, we have the chance to advance this and

transform the neighborhood into a positive and productive neighborhood. a long way, we can improve the lives of existing neighborhoods along the southeast and generate opportunities for many san franciscans for years to come. board of supervisors took major steps in this direction in 1997. when it first approved the shipyard redevelopment plan. and again in 2006 when it approved the bayview hundred. redevelopment plan. the approval document for this project are numerous, and at times complicated, and i want to thank the many city staff who have worked so hard over the years on many facets of this proposal. various parts of this project went to a number of commissions for review, and i also want to acknowledge commissioners from both the public health, the

puc, the port, rec and park, new jersey, building, and, of course, planning and the development -- mta, building, and of course, planning and development. i also want to thank my colleagues on this committee for their patience and indulgence on the many informational hearings we have had on this project. i want to acknowledge the leadership of our state and federal representatives on this project, including state senator mark little, senators feinstein and boxer, and speaker nancy pelosi, who have championed the ongoing cleanup effort at the shipyard for many years. finally, we are here today deliberating on this project because of the contributions of community members who have dreamed and hope of new opportunities in the southeast for years. both those who are supportive of this project and those who have opposed it, many of those individuals are in this room today. thank you for your time, your concern, your questions, your guidance, and continually

shaping and improving this project. the viewpoints, both for the against and those who have been against it have had a positive impact on this proposal. let me clarify -- i want to clarify one procedural matter -- the certification of the eir for this project has been appealed, and the board will hear that matter tomorrow afternoon. at the conclusion of the day's hearing, i will ask that these items be sent to the full board without a recommendation. the city attorney has advised us that we may take that action in light of pending ceqa appeal. i also want to state that i have met with several representatives and have been working with them to draft additional language that clarifies and asserts the board's commitment to ongoing collaboration between the city and native american representatives throughout the implementation of this project. i intend to introduce legislation on that matter next week. with that, there are a few

amendments i would like to offer, and i will explain the order actions i will be asking us to take this afternoon. we would like to table item one, no longer needed. it is covered by another file on a package. items four, five, six, eight, nine, 10, 11, and 13 have non- substantive amendments that need to be adopted. members of the committee already have copies of those amendments. additionally, it is my intention to ask that items 9 and 10 be sent out of the committee report. these items be the subject of a hearing at the full board tomorrow afternoon, but will not be acted upon at that time. the board will accept public comment on these two items tomorrow, and i expect that they will then be continued until the other items we have considered today related to the project catch up at the full board. with that, -- >> madam chair, clan would

clarify that we are tabling in two on the agenda? supervisor maxwell: yes, we are clarifying -- we are tabling in two and agent. supervisor chiu: it was not in one but item two? >> yes, we are going to be tabling item two, not number one. supervisor maxwell: [inaudible] all right, why don't we hear from our staff on this? >> good afternoon. for the record, michael cohen, director of the office of economic and workforce development. i want to acknowledge we have quite a bit of city staff here as well in support, including the director of the san francisco redevelopment agency, and amy from the department of

public health. we also have a number of folks who will be helping to present this afternoon. as always, when we discuss this project, we appropriately start with process. the items that are before you today are the direct result of well more than a decade of intensive community-based planning. as the supervisor noted, every single element of this project has been discussed, debated, dissected, and reshaped by hundreds upon hundreds of community meetings. many of these have been held at and through the bayview project area committee and the hunters point shipyard citizens advisory committee, and we should all stand in deep recognition of the commitment and sacrifice that they have made, but we also have had countless weekend workshops,

monthly meetings with the residents of alice griffith, and dozens of other community forum s. as we get close to a vote on a project like this, suddenly, pieces of paper began to circulate, and i saw one of them, and it seems to be criticizing the idea that the community process just recently began and that that was inappropriate for a redevelopment project like this. i have to say, it is not only ludicrous, it is factually untrue. i know this because when i started as city attorney in 1996, it was 14 years ago here in the first project that i worked on was hunters point shipyard, and we spent years working on what the redevelopment plan should look like before a developer looks at it. what should be the priorities of this community? how should we go about selecting

a developer? running and rfq and rfp process? in the community had incredible input on the selection of the developer in the process, so the idea that somehow this community process just began in earnest nine months ago or 18 months ago is just factually incorrect. as the supervisor noted, the project has also been debated and dissected and reshaped at years of public hearings with all these different public agencies, and it is important to note that each of them brings their own constituency, so when we spent years discussing this ad puc, folks who are concerned with an educated about water issues were at the forefront. when we were at rec and park over many years, we were there focusing on what the court should look like, with the recreational field should look like, mta, countless hearings

about what you write transit solutions are for this project. the city's department of public health. -- alice hearings about what are the right transit solutions for this project. tom was hearings about the soundness of moving ahead with development on this -- countless hearings about moving ahead with this. as the supervisor noted, it was not just in 1997, but really, every key element of the project approvals that are before you today have been previously presented to the board of supervisors. they have been discussed at great length, and they have been endorsed, including a conceptual framework from 2007 that laid out the basic land uses, laid out the financing plan, laid out the key public benefits. he then came back with more specific urban design and finance plan, all for the

purpose of making sure that we were checking to make sure that if we were going to go spend the incredible amount of resources necessary to take this over the finish line, that we were indeed headed in the right direction. of course, the project was overwhelmingly approved by the voters of san francisco in each and every district of san francisco in 2008. since the last time we presented to you, which was, i think, only about a month ago, we now have final and formal approval of the eir for the project from the planning commission and redevelopment agency commission, plus final and formal approvals from a host of city departments in the project document themselves, including pac, cac, redevelopment agency, dph, and rec and park. this has been far and away the

most thorough public review process ever undertaken in san francisco. and for any individual who is sincerely interested in for dissipating in a debate about what is the best way to revitalize these long abandoned lands, we have provided every forum conceivable conceivable for that debate. xi, a little bit behind. if i could get the slides of on the screen. so before i turn it over to david thompson, who was the project architect, to walk through the land plan -- david tom, who was the lead project architect, this is all stuff we have covered before. we have presented not only with you, but at many, many public hearings these basic facts, but it is always important to come back to them because it is so

central to what we're talking about. the first is that the cleanup of the shipyard is governed by federal law, namely the comprehensive environmental radiation compensation and liability act. the responsibility of the cleanup is the federal government through the united states navy, and it is overseen by the federal environmental protection agency and the california environmental protection agency. neither the city nor the redevelopment agency will the developer have any specific authority over cleanup assistance, and this is a really important point because there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about this. nor will the city cozy eir or the navy's eis evaluate the clan of the shipyard -- the city's eir. it is a fundamental misstatement

of the lot to expect that the eir or the navy's eis is to evaluate the appropriate level of cleanup at the shipyard.

and the reason we were so focused on empowering them is

because the standards are so strict. everything that needs to come out of the ground will come out of the ground. the standard for the low level materials that can stay in the ground is if you can touch, eat, and breathed these materials every day for 30 years and not have a health risk -- but on top of that as an added layer of protection, epa requires the classic solution that the building of parks and streets provide an added layer of mattel -- protection over the materials that you could be exposed to every day for 30 years. this is a key as well. you hear a lot about caps or

covers. be really clear about this. the navy and regulators may not have decided on the remedy. e2 is unique in that it is the one place to the navy is proposing to the regulators that they would leave a cat. the rest of the shipyard is being cleaned to a level that everything that has to come out of the ground will come out of the ground. exposure standard is the incredibly conservative 30-year standard. then you have all of these requirements. in of all these other added layers of protection. -- then you have all these other added layers of protection. based of years of protection and studies -- based on years of studies, they will provide the the shepherd can and should be developed in phases.

as large parcels are completed, instead of waiting until the end to begin development. this is a hugely important point. our work over the last six years has been fundamentally guided by the idea that it was safe and appropriate to develop the shipyard in phases and that there was no good scientific reason to wait until the end to begin the process given the critical community and economic benefits at stake. that conclusion was informed on a huge amount of technical analysis. there have been over 30,000 soil and groundwater samples and countless other tests and studies done on the shipyard. as a result, it is perhaps the best characterized cleanup site in the united states.

based on that incredibly thorough analysis, epa and others have repeatedly concluded there is no surface or a decent seat risk from the shipyard. -- adjacency risk from the shipyard. if the premise that you should wait to develop the shipyard until everything is clean is correct, then we should go and evict all 250 of the artists have been there for 20 years. we will not do that because there is not a shred of scientific evidence that says it is not safe for them to be there. epa has confirmed that point repeatedly time and time again. it was also the precise finding that epa and dtsc and the other regulatory agencies have to

approve the other on construction on parcel a. it actually touches all of those. as a result, this basic question about waiting until the end were developing this in phases was asked and answered after about 45 years of study and debate all the way back in 2005. since the conveyance agreement was executed, our confidence and that of the environmental regulators that the shipyard is safe for both current huge -- current uses and development has only gotten stronger thanks to speaker pelosi. the funding for cleanup and more testing at the shipyard has gone up exponentially since the conveyance agreement was

executed. over $700 million has been spent by the navy on the cleanup and doing all of this characterization. vast portions of the shipyard are already complete. all they are waiting on is regulatory closeouts and confirmatory testing. we have talked about it before. the ship. has been and will remain the beneficiary of this incredibly, almost redundant overlapping set of federal, state, regional, and local environmental watchdogs. you do not have to worry about one of the watchdogs getting it wrong or not having the right point of view. you have to assume that they all got it wrong and all have the wrong point of view. each and every one of those agencies using the very best

science has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that it is safe to develop the shipyard in precisely the manner we are proposing. i thought it was important to go over some of the environmental cleanup materials. let me introduce the lead the project architect to walk you through the land use. >> the queue for the explanation. i know you presented this a few meetings ago. can you go over a radiological contamination and how that was cleaned? a number of people have communicated to our offices that a number of the particles have had radiological contamination. >> amy from the ph is here.

and named refer to her on the technical. -- amy from dph is here. i may refer to her on the technical portion. as a general matter, the radiological concerns of the ship. incredibly low level. at a previous hearing, she was describing the exposure levels we're talking about is lower than walking -- watching tv four hours a week or other common activities. the primary concern and potential pathway was this very low level radiation from glow in the dark dials and other things that may have been put in the debris and ended up in the sewer system. everything that you see in blue on that slide is the old server network. red is the old fuel plants.

every one of those is being taken out. -- red is the old fuel lines. we get hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of things we would not be entitled to other than that they made that decision. the second thing is every time they pull out one of the lines, they test the bottom. they do split samples. they take the dirt and send it to two different labs to confirm the conclusion. the radiological contamination and has been and will be addressed at the shipyard has been a quite a low level. it is getting an incredibly thorough remediation. when we did the conveyance agreement in 2004 and 2005 -- there have historically been anxieties about it. you do not think about how much radiation your body or a tv

produces. maybe even a cup of coffee produces it. we ask epa to come out and do a scanne to deal with the the isse of adjacency risk. is it safe for the artists and police department to be there? epa did a complete scan of service levels of radiation on the hunters yard -- hunter's point shipyard. they found no risk. we ask them to do it periodically on a regular basis to confirm that. i do not know if there's any form -- anything more technical. with that, i will turn it over to david tom. >> i am david