to say it needs repair, this is an opportunity to get some repairs done, make things better for everybody. i think it sailing is a wonderful way for people to see the environment, this wonderful day we have. not just people, some of our underserved communities who do not know we have this resource. i hope he will approve this tonight and get the ball rolling. president chiu: any other members of the public? i would like to ask to the appellant to step up. you have up to five minutes for a rebuttal. >> thank-you, president chiu. i was going to address one of the questions about evidence with respect to the jumbotron,

mike -- clients appreciate the removal of that. the spectator numbers, i miss spoke as well. i believe i said the number of boats and spectators were going to go down. that is not true. the number of spectators are going to go down. in fact, the spectator numbers are going down as well. if you go to page 1179 of the -- i'm sorry, 1117, it gives the exact numbers by which the projections have decreased. for instance, in the event, boats are down from 2000 to 800.

the water-based spectators from 18,000 to 10,000. i just wanted to clarify that fact. with respect to the air quality, it has been indicated that he bay area quality accepted de shoreside at pier 70 as inadequate subsidy. that is true but the air district was clear that the planning department's own memo that was prepared said it was not certain in terms of feasibility.

what it does is throw a spotlight on the environmental analysis we talked about in our comment on the draft. if you go to that, you find at page 28 of my original letter, that what it does, as long as the increase in air emissions, as long as those are below, the threshold was based on 49 pounds per day of those chemicals. everything above that is considered significant. the letter i wrote goes into detail as to why that is incorrect of the significance of that impact. the 49 pounds are being added to

a condition where the impact on ozone pollution is already severe. which you have is an inaccurate analysis of how significant the impact will be. the only go to the question of whether you're going to going past 49 pounds per day. neither one has been analyzed by how much deeper of a cut emissions can you get. down below it is based on an error of law which is using a threshold of significance which is not supported by any legal authority. it is good to have shoreside power. but it does not solve the environmental analysis on that problem.

i'm going to try something. i do not know if protocol allows for it. i'm going to put it on a screen. the hearing exhibit number one that i scribbled while i listened to the testimony, i'm curious, between this, he referred to a spectrum. the first one has conceptual at the far left. the next one has program at the left, a conceptual at the metal. i was not sure if from his testimony as to whether he considered the analysis to be -- [inaudible] president chiu: thank you very

much. colleagues, but me ask you if you want to complete your final thought. >> i could pose a question to him as to which of the the spectrum's captures what he was saying about the program? president chiu: if any of our colleagues want to pose that to him that would be klein. >> i would like to introduce this into the record. i will leave it on the screen so he can have the benefit of seeing it. president chiu: any questions to the appellant? or to any of the parties? supervisor campos: i would be interested to see what he would have to say on that. >> i do not think the chart

captures what i said. conceptual falls are the program. in the context of the chart, maybe you could hold it up again. >> of the court took it away again. >> i think you had you had conceptual on that line. the closest approximation is that line. president chiu: any follow-up questions to anyone involved? supervisor campos: a quick question for the city attorney's office, we heard from the event authority that they were taking out the jumbotron, in terms of

the actions of the board, the out, was to certify it, how'd you make sure that piece of the project is taken out of what is before it? >> the city attorney's office, under the administrative code, section 3116, the board has to keep your options. it can uphold the certification or it can return it to planning for further review. the board does not have the ability to amend the project. that would come later on when the board was reviewing the project documents. supervisor campos: that is what -- that what happened subsequently? >> can we close the public hearing?

ok. president chiu: i want to thank everyone who participated in today's hearing. everyone from the city, the yvette authority, and the appellants for raising a lot of issues that i think we have been thinking about in recent weeks. it was about a year and a half ago in 2010 i was one of the sponsors of the america's cup proposal. we knew at that time that we have a lot of details we needed to deal with. that is what we're doing right now. i think the issues that are raised were very important. i want to thank the folks who raised the issue around the jumbotron and the agreement to move off that issue. at this time, i would like to ask we affirm the certification

of the final eir to address the issue i have raised about ensuring that we have adequate environmental impact reports for long-term development rights. if i could read the specific amendment that would like to make, affirming the certification. the main cause would state the following -- this board of supervisors expects that further environmental review would be prepared for the specific long- term development proposals that the america's cup authority, or its assignees may submit to the city as complement -- contemplated. it would take into account the specific characterization's and the circumstances at the time the individual proposal was

submitted for review. i would also mention that on page 2 of the motion, in one of, the second major cause, long-term development rights, that we add a clause which states which were analyzed at a general level that additional review would be conducted with one or more specific proposals for development submitted to the city. i have heard from all the parties from the planning department, the yvette authority -- event authority, that when proposals come to this city we conduct the appropriate review. i think it is important we reiterate that. i would like to amend the proposed motion which is item 30.

would be ready to vote on it today. i hope they take the time to look carefully at some of the issues that have been raised. i am happy to have that discussion. i know a number of concerns have been raised including pierre 29 about whether or not the

>> 1% of sales of condominiums and that is being accumulated, and i think a number of those issues zero. to whether or not the city and county of santa skull and the taxpayers are getting a fair deal. we want america's cup to be in san francisco, but we want to make sure that we protect the interest of taxpayers. we don't want to give away the store. i look forward to the conversation between now and the time that the development agreement comes before us. i want to thank the staff worked very hard on this.

it is inclusive of everyone in san francisco, every single member hud endeavors in the district is part of this process. we are all part of the project because it can't be for one segment of the population. >> i am very much going to be voting to uphold its tonight. i know it is not before us tonight, certainly an issue in district 2, where i represent. i know it is to be worked out. thousands of the volunteers came out and it will need to be somewhat prepared after america's cup.

i want to make sure that it is top of the mind for folks. i want to commend the event authority for working with the neighborhood so far. it is something want to make sure we're looking forward to. >> i want to thank you for adopting the various amendments for the motion the firm's debts. i also want to emphasize that i don't think the of this deal is done. there are still in business terms the need to be resolved. i still share concerns about the real estate points about this pier 29 is appropriately part of the future long-term development plan on the financial side. i want to make sure we have a deal that is fair to the city

and the port. it is not for us to consider. it is for us to be engaged in conversations. i'd think we all know that they have the number of legs. with this approval, it is time for us to go to the next leg and the hope that we approve this tonight and move it forward. >> i started this hearing looking at this with a lot of skepticism and i ever looked at my role in improving the project as coming forward with coming to the table with skepticism. overall, i am concerned about costs.

i believe what was presented with a row and adequate. they were created for the conditions of moving forward on how america's cup will be organized. i have questions remaining. and these things are going to be key for me as was assuring that what i had been part of approving in december 2010, the red be no hint of a general fund. about if we're going to afford of the mitigating measures that have been appointed to in this. we'll look through in the budget process how we can assess those issues.

>> i will be voting for them, that strengthens -- i think it is important about having these discussions to keep the big picture in mind about how significant america's cup is. we have the most beautiful region in the world.

we're going to make that happen and it is going to be a huge success. let's not lose sight of the big picture and let's not pay lip service. >> i would like to make a motion to amend item 30 -- of firm item 30 and cable 31 and 32 if possible. >> of the motion to affirm item 30 as amended and table items 31 and 32.

before we take the roll call. >> he read the amendments on this document but there is one that you did not read out, page 5. you're adding subsequent written correspondence. >> of the language currently reads whereas this board has considered the responses to concerns and there is language that we are -- subsequent written correspondence. it is just those three words that i neglect to mention. >> on item 30, to table 31 and 32.

[roll call vote] there are 10 aye's. >> can we return to item 7? >> item 7 has been called. >> colleagues, i want to take a moment to thank the members of the public involved, we will continue to be working together. this is a lease of a current events that is being displaced because of the america's cup which is our intelligent transportation. if this release would move them to appear 50.

i've asked we adopt these amendments. we can't vote on this today. because of the time frame, we would need to bring us back to the board next week rather than back to a committee which would have been my choice. i like to ask that we amend this and we continue this item to next week. >> without objection. >> mr. chair and mr. president, commitetee as a whole? >> the next board meeting, is there a second? can we take those without objection? item 26 has been read.

any comments on item 26? roll call, please. [roll call vote] >> there are 11 aye's. >> that is passed on first reading. and finally, teh adopt -- the adoption calendar. >> immediate in unanimous adoption acted on by a single roll call vote unless the member requests an item be removed and considered. >> 37 and 39.

>> could we first do rloll call vote on the 36, 38, 41 through 44. [roll call vote] >> therea r are 11 aye's. >> item 37 is a resolution opposing the interpretation of

the constitution and citizens united regarding the rights of corporations and supporting an amendment to provide the corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections of natural persons. >> motion to continue. >> can we take the motion to continue? item 39. >> resolution recognizing original joe's as a stable of san francisco history and proclaiming january 26 as original joe's day? >> of petrine me in recognizing this upcoming thursday as original joe's day here in san francisco as many of the null, it has been a legendary restaurant in for a number of years. they are reopening, finally, afa