a week to settle their differences with the city, because the clouds are gathering, and you do not have a good eir to stand on, so i want to encourage your tuesday your action and really come to the conclusions of that you can mitigate impacts. i do want to emphasize the jumbotron and just say that that have got to go, and you got to come up with mitigation. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, president chiu, supervisors, and city and port staff. i am a director with sea turtles dot org. i have been engaged in the review of the america's cup from the beginning and a provided a lot of comments, and i am encouraged by the progress that has been made today, but i would like to urge the supervisors to

work closely with the appellants to work of the final concerns related to the environment. i think that, it seems to me that most of the environmental concerns can be addressed. i am also very appreciative of the supervisors who are in the district to raise the issue in support for the air quality concerns related to a shoreside power on pure 70 and pier 27, and it looks like there has been some very the progress which we may hear about later today which may make the pier 70 project more of a done deal. i think there is some uncertainty, and i think if we can hear more about the certainty of the project, but will address most if not all of the air quality measures. another option to consider as a backstop, because none of us knows what the future holds, it, for example, the pier 70 -- does

not go forward. and like the other in our jon greaves, i do welcome the america's cup as a sporting event. i think it will be a great thing if we can work out some of these and varnishes, and i really urge you to do that, whatever it takes. i think there were like four to rock options out on the table as to next steps, so i urge you to consider the one that will work best for all. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i am -- a graduate of san francisco statement -- majoring in environmental studies. i took courses last semester, so i used my freshman year to take a look at your eir. osseshia these measures are not sufficient.

innocent until proven guilty, which is that something is not significant until we find out months later. so i want you to apply a precautionary principle here which basically says that this significant until proven not significant but other cases. is there any other project like this that is not as an impact to the environment and swimmers prove the students and professors that i am learning from, we young students are concerned about the aquatics community. we want this to the organizers to have unquestionable research and planning and budget for it, and we wish you all hear our voice and taken into consideration. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> president chiu, supervisors,

commissioners. my name is stan. i in the past president and a board member. i am currently a member of another group with homeland security and labour relations officer. i have also worked with christmas in april. i support the america's cup. we have had meetings with the america's cup people, but there is a problem with the cove. they are going to anchor that on the stand. there are winds that hit 40 m.p.h. in that growth, pictured that. it is going to be hard to anchor. you have swimmers, approximately 2000 members from the two clubs, which swim along the beach and then, monaco. when i was present, and laid out a swimming, as directed by the ggnra, in i believe that

encompasses that old coat. now, you're going to let people swimming and rolling with a giant diesel generator. but representative, i know the hazards of diesel fuel. the helium and other toxics that come out of it. you are going to have that running for a television that is really not needed out there because it will present a danger to the people you swim, fish, and wrote out there because of that diesel output. -- and row out there. this needs more consideration because you are making a dangerous condition for all people, even people that our visitors walking around the museum. thank you. thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is set. i about six blocks from aquatics

crow. i swim there. i am not representing my club, so i will not talk about it. what i wanted to talk about is our planning department and maybe the commission. every day -- i worked at a mission, and when i take a walk, when i go by a 11th and mission, i see some of the ugliest commercial buildings i never ever seen. i suggest you go look at them. when i walk towards city hall on a windy day, i can get almost blown off of my feet by the plaza. who's supported that? when i go to justin herman plaza, i see one of the agree is public spaces i never ever seen. it is horrendous, and now today, i hear from our very first speaker about the inadequacy of the planning department review of these proposals. i also hear some good questioning by the supervisors that there are 80% fewer

spectators that are expected here. is this going to be another boondoggle? in san francisco going to wind up in the red because of the america's cup? i tell you, my colleagues say they support america's cup. i have real doubts about it. i guess it is too late to be changed, and the city does not need to be sued for it, but i do not trust the planning department anymore. as a longtime resident here, i do not know who to ask these questions of, but i thought i would oppose them to you. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is tony, and i want to talk about the economic benefits of the america's cup. i am sure you'll be discussing the $1.40 billion and 8000 jobs promised at the pinnacle of america's cup. a lot of folks are lining up in

this room telling you about the whole thing. when the port commission considered this in december, the approved an overriding consideration because they found 41 different, unavoidable environment impact of the america's cup and 10 more because of the cruise ship terminal. they needed to approve it because of the economic impacts, but when the board considered it, it left them very undefined, very vague. why did they do that. i would suggest that because there is no documentation or prove anywhere of those dollars or those jobs. the same economic benefits and a promise today in this eir are the exact ones that were promised when it was announced. 8000 jobs and over $1 billion.

where do the benefits go? do they go to the people paying $180 per night instead of $150 per night for a room? and how does that benefit local businesses or local jobs? this applies to the benefits, as well. frankly, supervisors, you should be ready to ask questions about that. you may not be able to judge this appeal. this is simply for today's approvals. this is down the road. thanks for listening. president chiu: next speaker. >> i am with the san francisco international arts festival organization, and there is one aspect of the eir that really has not been dwelt upon today,

and that is the idea of crowd control, whatever the numbers are, and you predict how many people are coming and where they are going to go when their race is over, and let's not forget, there is only raising on the bay for one hour in the afternoon, and no matter how many people show up, we want to try and have them stay in this city so that they do spend some money, not just leave immediately after the races are over, and the way we do it in our industry, we kind of have a box office, so we're talking about having a festival during the america's cup where people could actually reserve their space for the america's cup, and then a whole range of other events. then we would know how many people are coming and where they intend to go. we could figure out how many police officers are there and how many extra trains to put on.

none of this has been considered at all. how you manage that many people normally, these things happen offshore. if we are going to try and figure out how we deliver on the economic numbers, we need to have a plan, and that plan is an arts festival or a lot of arts events. that is why the olympics do it. they not do it because they like ours. they do to keep people in town to spend the money they said they would. we talked to the people at the vancouver olympics. you want to hear that part. thanks. president chiu: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am just here to finish more of what andrew was saying. we are looking at how it will help us provide events in the neighborhoods. andrew was right. if they are not raising all day long, what are those people going to do? hopefully, they will infiltrate our city and patronize our hotels, nightclubs, our retail shops. at least to get started with the infrastructure part of it. i do not think that you should disregard the eir. thank you. president chiu: next speaker.

if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak, lineup. >> i am with a train network. organizing things that coincide with the america's cup. i want to point out two things, and one is in addition to the intrinsic benefit of and into people's lives, or raising awareness of the environmental issues, for example, ours has proven impact for example, the national organization, such as americans for the arts. they say that for those people who visit the city to attend arts and culture events, they are likely to spend 1.4 to 1.6 more money per person, so that

should help. i also wanted to finish up the statistics that the san francisco arts festival was saying. they counted the seeds for the spectators to see the olympic games. that was 1 million seats for all of the venues to see the sporting events. however, 5.2 million people visited vancouver, and what did they do? what did the rest of the 4.2 million people do to enjoy? they attended arts events, and that was their experience of the olympic games. thank you. >> hey, there.

my name is hunter. i live and work in san francisco. i also sale. my kids sale. i loves sailing. i have to say that i am very concerned about this overall america's cup agreement, in fact, does very little for recreational boating in san francisco. it does stuff for the port. it does a lot of stuff for the america's cup, but the vision and commitment to actually develop facilities to provide for recreational boating in san francisco is very thin, and i would really hope that as this process goes forward that we actually looked at actually providing for sailing in san francisco, not just the america's cup. thank you very much. >> president chiu, members of the board of supervisors, my

name is aaron. you have heard about the economic part of the host and the new agreement in the america's cup is inextricably tied to ceqa. we should not only be concerned about the short-term benefits and risks associated with this event through 2013 but the long- term health of the port of san francisco and enterprise agency that relies on mostly revenue from leases to survive. why is this a ceqa issue? because it is a port, and if the balance sheet is in trouble, it has any number of on analyzed see what impact. -- it as any number of unanalyzed ceqa impacts. i respectfully say to the city

attorney that the advice you have given the board of supervisors that those changes did not materially increasing obligations or liabilities are incorrect. they did. i think that is known now. i suggest to you that the host and the new agreement be modified, either through -- the host and the venue agreement be modified, either through dda or other. participation on the long-term leases on piers 26, 32, and others. '23, 19, 19.5, others, they were not part. the on the one that remains is pier 29, and that for the overall health of the port of san francisco i believe should come out. thank you. president chiu: any other

members of the public wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? a, at this time, why do we not hear a presentation from the planning department? -- ok. >> i would planning staff. victoria, jessica, rich, and the environmental consulting team. the i come before you is the repeal of the environmental impact report or eir for the proposed america's cup and the cruise terminal and northeast wharf project. the planning commission certified the project in 2011. the board may affirm or reverse the action of the planning commission by a majority vote of all members of the board, and the board shall a from the certification of the final eir if the board finds that the

final eir is accurate and objective and that its conclusions are correct. it the board or worse as the planning commission's certification of the eir, it should remain in the final eir to the planning commission for further action consistent with the board fighting. the question at hand is the adequacy of the apartment document according to ceqa, not on the merit of the projects themselves. the board of that opportunity later to consider other aspects of the project beyond environmental effects. the eir covers two into related projects. the city and county of san francisco and the america's cup event authorities proposed to host the 34th america's cup sailing races in san francisco bay in 2012 and 2013. the proposed the development of pure 27 as the harman crews terminal -- pier 27 as the

herman cruise terminal. the draft eir was published on july 11, 2011, and the planning commission held a hearing on august 11. 245 written comments, the document published on december 1, 2011, including all comments and responses to those comments. the document also includes changes that either clarify information or make minor changes and corrections to the document. other changes were due to refinements to the project and alternatives, many which were refined, and then there are other clarifications or corrections that result in a change the findings and conclusions in the draft eir. ceqa guidelines section -- states that an agency is

required to recirculates -- recirculate, and these identify significant information needed as any changes that would result and any new significant impact, increase the severity of impact, or require new mitigation measures. none of the above would apply. instead, the new information provides a more realistic description of the anticipated impact and would result in the reduction of severity of impact compared to that presented in the draft eir. therefore, we circulation is not warranted. a couple of highlights that did occur after the draft eir was published for air quality. they were augmented in response to public comments received on the draft dnr, discussions with the district, and ordinations by

the port systems, the ship operator. as a result, the methodology for assessing the acute health hazard and mitigation measures, the severity of several impacts were substantially lessened. compared to those presented in the draft eir, most notably regional significant air quality impacts due to oxide of nitrogen and particulate matter, 2.5, resulting from operation from the event that could be reduced to below significant threat strolls -- cigna and thresholds. organic acids, they would consent to continue to exceed the threshold and continue to result in a significant and unavoidable impact. the combination of a revised project description assumptions and implementation of all

updated mitigation measures could result in the offset of all emissions associated with the commissioning of shoreside power at your 27 -- at pier 27. emissions resulting from the project could be reduced to less than significant with implementation of up to the mitigation measures. these impacts were determined, and due to feasibility, the conclusions remained unchanged in the final eir. this it relocates the berthing at risk on -- at rincon.

there is a new table, 12.11-2 that provides a reference to where in the september 2011 people planned transportation elements of each of the mitigation measures are discussed in more detail. this table will also be included in the final. the eir does disclose the number of impacts, including those that would not create significant finding the facts and those that could create some of the impact but whether which it would either precluded or reduce it to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. there are some impacts of ever which would remain significant and unavoidable. transportation, noise, air quality, and tim wood impacts on air quality, and we did

anticipate a long-term development impacts -- air quality, and other impacts on air quality. the significant impacts include noise and air quality. so, again, the december 15 planning commission certified the eir. on december 16, the port commission approved the project and adopted a statement of overriding consideration that explains how the benefits of the projects outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. the mitigation and monitoring and reporting programs were also adopted at that meeting. the board received two appeal letters before january 4 deadline, one from keith wagner, representing san francisco tomorrow, golden gate audubon society, telegraph hill

dwellers, and others, and a second letter from rebecca evans on behalf of the sierra club's san francisco group. since then, there have been three separate appeal memos from the appellant, one on january 17, two yesterday, january 23, and as we receive the latest letter at the close of business, we have just submitted our response memo to the board. we also submitted responses to the dolphins and south and rowing club. -- the south end rowing club. i will not go through each and every one of them, but i will touch on a few that came up during testimony. aquatics park, the issue that the appellants raised is insufficient analysis of the impacts of the jumbotron in a aquatic park. there is concern about increased boat traffic in an aquatic park and the safety to swimmers in

the cove. the staff has analyzed impacts on water quality, air quality, nor is, hazards, and recreation, and they are all covered in the eir -- air quality, nor is, hazards, and recreation. -- air quality, noise. sediment due to the type of moorings and the flashing in the cove, the use of fuel for generators must comply with requirements for secondary containment and spill prevention. the generators would only be used during events, and air pollution emissions would be reduced but the use of biofuels as -- there may be some

temporary inconvenience at times, and we do recognize that. the national park service does monitor access, and the code is restricted to non motorized vehicles -- the code -- cove is restricted. some could not be done under project levels. the eir does analyze long-term development and the conceptual level, not at a project-specific level, and it provides a broad sweep of mitigation levels. the analysis is insufficient detail to support the discretionary as envisioned in the host and then you -- and venue agreement.

the analysis will be required for all development projects, whether they be eir or other. and we do not know what kind of an apartment to a document that would be until we know what the project would be. spectator boats, eir does not support a reduced number of spectator boats. the draft eir numbers for the spectator boats were based on preliminary informal estimates from race organizers but not on actual counts. we do have people here who could speak to that specific report. a final eir revise the numbers based on actual numbers ortega during the 2011 fleet week and weekend. it was provided lockman and update the analysis.