the impacts are reduced, and by the way, the total number of people have not been reduced. it was just the boat counts that were revised based on empirical data. funding. funding sources for mitigation measures were not identified as one of the issues. the eir does identify feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented, but ceqa does not require the measures identified who pays for the mitigation measures, just we are only to state a performance standard, and the only two mitigation measures that were uncertain for finding more air quality and transportation. all of the other impact mitigation measures that would lessen the impact were considered certain.

" the mitigation measures provided by the air district, we did provide extensive updated mitigation measures. the one at pier 70 b is addressed -- 70 is addressed. we had to be conservative. and could point to bring up in the air district as they did it request and in lieu of feet. their letters as they did accept been -- the pier 70 instead of the in lieu fees. the air quality emissions. we did revise the air quality analysis based on the description assumptions or spectator and support boats,

cruise ships, updated air district methodology, and updated and augmented mitigation measures considerably. as i said before. and the revised analysis more accurately addresses the impact. another issue, the mitigation measures is it feasible, so the impact should be less than significant. the operational air quality impact, the impact remains a significant and unavoidable. the eir does not quantify or provided description. the final eir includes a description of direct impact, such as direct impacts of

questioning or removing vegetation. these are just a few of the appeals that were raised. the appeal letters raise issues similar to those already addressed in the eir. president chiu: thank you very much. i know there will probably be a lot of questions from colleagues, and i will start. i want to look at questions raised by the public about the jumbotron and constituencies. out of full disclosure, i should probably mention that in my early thirties, i had been known it to swim in the aquatic park as well. this is a large that you're talking about, 140 feet. there has been it concerns raised about whether that screen could tip over or potentially great. you talk about using a blow through design that has been used for short-term outdoor use

and large temporary out your concert venues. i am wondering in kazakhstan and tested on the water for the length of time that we of the toddler of america's cup. -- i am wondering if it has been tested in the water. >> we have representatives here to speak on that. if they could, . david? >> i am david. we have gotten some of that information from a company called heartland, and they have provided a design, the dimensions that you discussed. -- a company called hartman. there have been examples of jumbotron use in parts of asia and singapore and china, but, obviously, as the design would

go forward, additional design refinements would be made. president chiu: but, again, these are designs that have been used in the water? or just for concerts, as was described in the response from planning? >> it is definitely based on water, based on a barge design that would carry the jumbotron. president chiu: with the moorings, eir stated that there was no anticipated settlement issue, so there was no impact from that, but getting that you are dropping a certain cubic foot concrete anchor blocks into aquatic park, i think there are lots of concerns that you would be potentially dredging up toxic sentiments. -- sediment. >> i understand there has not been and sediment test in aquatics park cove. there have been some along the bay. for the anchor blocks, those are just going to be five by five by

five concrete blocks that will be placed at the bottom of the seabed from the barge. we are anticipating some sediment movement when we place those blocks on the floor, but they will resettle, and we have not found that a significant environmental impact with that. president chiu: ok. have you looked into land alternatives with respect to the jumbotron? >> that is a question to the project sponsor. it was actually the water side barge that was the idea of the national park service. they are looking at options for land. president chiu: ok, i guess i could probably address this with the project sponsor when it is the appropriate time. and then, one last question, i know there is an a lot of discussion about analysis. you are stating here on the record that for future long-term development plans that it would be required to go through

separate environmental reviews to comply with ceqa, right? that is the claim that planning is making at this time? >> yes. i guess what needs to be clarified is we are doing a project-level clearance on two things, the america's cup event and the cruise ship terminal. there is not product-level clearance of anything else. the appellants have tried to make a big deal about the conceptual level, and i think what we are trying to illustrate there is the word programmatic coverage in ceqa can be a lot of different things, at the more precise level you know quite a bit about what's being proposed and the concerns mr. lippy would be legitimate in this case, we know nothing specific about anything that's proposed long-term because nothing specific's been proposed long-term. and using the word "conceptual

level clearance" what we're really trying to highlight is because there is so little that can be analyzed the level of environmental coverage is basically conceptual at a basic level. it's derived from kind of what can be reasonably expected based on what's been proposed in specific years on the waterfront, things that have been part of the port, thinking about what could happen but they don't represent specific proposals. if i could illustrate the distinks of a the -- distinction of the bicycle programming afrpblt r. a -- a.r. at the more precise level where n.t.n. planners, bicycle folks knew that they were going to do

sharos. what we did was we did what i would consider a fine grain level of coverage. if you did sharos on the bicycle network we are basically providing coverage. and if you were going to do that spir else, you needed to look it it for closely. i would say at the other end of the spectrum at a more well he defined level, we had long-term bicycle plans which were essentially on paper. what they illustrated that these specific treatments as far as the bicycle plan several years ago represent steps towards ar comprehensive bicycle network citywide. they were not specific proposals. there was not coverage at a specific proposal level but there's an acknowledgement that there would be in the future defined specific treatments in

specific places and this was the best guess of that at the time. so i think this idea of conceptual level is reflecting something even beyond that in terms of lack of specificity and the core essence of sequa as you can only analyze at the level of detail of what is being proposed. and what is being proposed here long-term is nothing specific. so the level of coverage is appropriate for that level. in terms of somebody saying and making a commitment. it will be an e.i.r. i think as she said in her presentation, what kind of coverage will be dependent on what it will specifically cover, propose. but in terms of what kind of coverage you'll get in a long-term sense for a project that hasn't been defined, you're getting it at a very problematic conceptualized level. >> the question i have is the

apelllan's contention is depending on how we charactize it there's a different standard of evidence that's required how we review that. do you agree with that statement? or do you agree that the more stringent level of review is required -- >> again, unambiguously we have program level coverage and all i was trying to illustrate even within the program level coverage, it's at a very generalized conceptual level in terms of what is the appropriate level of evaluation. that's a question for the city attorney. >> ok. thank you. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i had a question for the city attorney before i went back to the planning department, if i may. in looking at this issue at the jumbotron and then just generally about the findings that the planning department

has made, what's the level of evidence or scrutiny that we have to look at? in other words, to be able to uphold what the planning department has decided, what's the level of evidence that we have to see supporting that? >> president chiu, the level of review within an e.i.r. is that there is substantial evidence to support the city's determination of whether there is a significant impact. >> that's what i thought. and so going back now to the planning department and following the line of question -- questioning that president chiu was engaging in this is where i have a problem on the issue of the jumbotron. i'm trying to understand what the substantial evidence to support your finding that

there's no environmental impact on that is. i have to admit that i'm not a swimmer unlike president chiu. i haven't been to aquatic park but in terms of common sense in trying to understand how it is that you can say that dropping this cement blocks into the bay is not going to have an environmental impact. one is the substantial evidence that we have before us to support that. >> i'm going to call up kelly capone from the court. and she can -- she's our hydrology expert and we also have other ex-pers that can answer your question. >> i'm working with the regional water quality control board to get our 401 permit on the clean water act.

and we are looking at water quality impact through that process and we determined with the regional board's help that the placement of concrete blocks on the bottom of the base floor would not cause a water quality impact. we're working through that with the regional board and expecting our 401 permit to come up real soon. >> through the chair, what is the evidence to support that determination? i know you determined that but what is the evidence to support it? >> the evidence that we have to support that is the work that we've done with the regional board which is to analyze what it would be to place these blocks on the base floor. what would happen to the setment there. placing the blocks may cause some of the settyment to disturbed but it is very minor, very located. and they don't pe serve that as a water quality impact. >> what's the evidence that

shows that it is minor? how do you define minor for one thing? >> i don't know. >> well, that's the challenge that since we don't have a definition of minor, how do we know that we actually have substantial evidence to support the finding? isn't that the core of what we're talking about here? >> supervisor chiu just in the development of that anchoring system, initially there was proposed a different anchoring system. chris kern of the planning department can address this as well which was more of a screw type anchor system that would have disturbed the settiment, putting blocks on the reege -- regional board have extensive experience with this anchoring system. and it doesn't cause

substantial disturbance. >> there has to be sub stan rl evidence to support that. so i'm trying to understand what that substantial evidence is. >> chris kern with the planning department, it's my understanding that the city attorney can opine if i get this wrong but the substantial evidence has to include the opinion of experts and we have been as ms. capone mentioned workings -- working with expert staff on water quality issues including this one. it is the intent of the experts at the regional board that this anchoring system, the placement of those blocks would not have a significant water quality impact. >> ok. could i add to this a little bit? >> yes. >> the burden of the financial evidence is not just on the

city, it's also on the appellant. we have people that are in that area every day or frequently and they have, you know, i think legitimate concerns that something is going to change and it would affect a former operation day value. in terms of substantial evidence is the sense that if you drop something heavy down there that it will stir up setiment in some broad lasting significant way. i think as mr. kerns pointed out and kelly pointed out as well, the expertise is not just the consultants that we use and we use consultants on a lot of subjects, in essence to get a permit to drop those anchors just like to get a permit to dredge or to deal with water quality issues, there are bodys that you have to satisfy to get those permits and those experts

in this case that kelly alluded to are the people that we are relying on. we're not, you know, pointing to some tremendous tiss. we're not pointing -- treatis. we're not pointing to some piece of people. the people that do this on a daily basis all the day and deal with it in a variety of ways and they have the authority to not grant a permit if their expertise, their experience is not satisfied and that's exactly what we're relying on in addition to any of the specific pieces of evident. but i think earlier there was a response by president chiu. what kind of analysis was done on this side of the bay? >> joy shell working with consultants with the planning department on preparing the e.i.r. the standard for looking at water quality impact is really

based on the water quality objectives and standards that are established by the water quality control board. and the water equal parameter that we're looking at here is called trepidity which is the physical disturbance of the settlement. as joy noted, there was no chemical testing of the settiment and that's because the construction of lowering a five foot by five foot cement block would cause physical disturbance which is characterized as minimal disturbance would be tremidity. there would be some turbidity but it would be short-term and it would settle. the e.i.r. notes there is regular flushing of the bay that occurs regularly which is why the quarter quality is so

good and would remain -- we expect council member tatiana kostanian: remain that way with the placement of these blocks. -- we expect it to remain that way with the placement of the blocks. there is no chemical disturbance really anticipated with the placement of these blocks. >> i think that's -- that's more my experience and the more i think you hear from the experts, i think that more questions are raised. i understand where you're coming from. but i think that it cuts both ways. just like, you know, we're talking about having a sense that there might be some impact. quite frankly, the way i would describe what i've heard is that in some respects the experts also had a sentence of how far they needed to go to understand, you know, when to stop the analysis. i think there is a very good argument that, in fact, testing

should have been done. other colleagues would have a difference of opinion. but i think that the fact that -- that as was noted earlier that there was even no definition of what it meant for something to be material. i think that raises a concern. and i'm still not convinced that you have given us the substantial evidence on this jumbotron. and i think there is -- you know, there is room for interpretation. but clearly you didn't go as far in terms of your analysis and your testing as you could have gone. but i don't want to belabor that point because what you said kind of speaks for itself. but if you want to add something i can move on to my next question. >> i understand your opinion. i just want to make clear that there's a clear distinction

piling rocks where there is pile driving where there is testing required and where testing will be done. and that is also analyzed and discussed in the e.i.r. at other locations where those extensive sediment activities will occur. so it is just -- again, we do rely on the opinion of experts of which the regional board is the recognized expert in regulatory authority within this region. >> if there's substantial evidence, you have presented evidence to back that up. >> the other reminder is substantial evidence needs to be presented on both sides. other than a generalized unease about this, i mean, i have yet to see, hear, presented in writing any substantial evidence by any expert about this -- this being something

other than a source of concern supported by substantial evidence or expertise by the appellants. >> are -- i think that what we heard makes point here. i understand that. i just have a general question about one of the points that was made in the letter. is there a difference of opinion that planning has in terms of thf statement that is made in the letter that to the extent that -- that there is uncertainty about the funding for the mitigation and the monitoring and the restoration, that that constitutes potentially a sequa. does planning disagree with that statement? >> i think what's getting jumboed in this discussion about whether we are floating, mitigating whether there's

uncertainty, whether things are funded is i say there are three kinds of mitigation. things that you you know will occur. there have been questions raised about deferred mitigation, in terms of that, again, i don't see that being raised so much as a concern. uh-huh, because again, you don't get your permit because if you don't satisfy the people. they have a statutory duty to do that. i think what's being raised and i think being confused is this situation where we have identified mitigation. and some of that mitigation was refined indicating more precise in the course of the investigation in the e.i.r.

what we're supposed to do is not walk out with the published e.i.r. get better information and do as much as you can. and i don't think there is any instances in the e.i.r. where we have identified something as fully mitigated that is not being fully mitigated. what we have done is there is uncertainty as to the imply mentation of something we have identified as substantially significant even with air quality with the exception of reactive gases there is a high level of likelihood that you will see that's beyond the high likelihood that it will happen, but because we cannot assume that things that were not committed to, things that were not funded would happen, you know, the findings that we made were potentially significant because of that uncertainty.

and so, you know, if the appellants want to make the case that there is some efficiency it would be limited to, we said something would happen, in the end there is uncertainty about it happening. i don't think that's the case in any of the issues that are being raised here. >> so that i understand your answer, you don't think that it's relevant for us to look at whether or not some of the city agencies will be able to actually pay for the mitigations that are being required of them? >> what i'm saying is if that was the situation you call a significant impact, i think it's totally relevant, i think the letter is on point more than any of the rest of the mountain of this paper that you have. unlike many situations you do have the ability. this is a framework for development agreement to the extent that there are things that you want to assure happen and to the ex-tenkt that ways

to pay for them can be augustmented beyond what has happened even since the e.i.r. were certified, those are things that you can deal with. my point in terms of thed a quasi of the e.i.r., the e.i.r. being adequate only if we said something is going to happen that has not occurred. and we haven't done that. >> that's where i think this board comes in. and i appreciate that answer because i think that it recognizes the very relevant analysis that is raised by ms. cleary. and i do think as part of our analysis of the e.i.r., we do need to be mindful of the fact that there are a number of mitigations that are being -- that are going to be required, things that are going to be asked of the city agencies that because of the level of commitment that those mitigations require, it's not clear in my estimation whether

or not we will be able to pay for that. and i look forward to hearing directly from some of those city agencies and in specific the port of san francisco. i think that if we know that there's an environmental impact that needs to be mitigated, i think we owe it not only legally but i think morally to make sure that we as a city are going to make those mitigations happen. and so i think that's part of the relevant piece of analysis with respect to sequa. but i appreciate that response. i recognize that we need to engage in that discussion. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor, questions to planning? >> at this time why don't i ask if we could have a representative from the project sponsor?

and you have up to 15 minutes to seedy vided as you see fit. >> mike martin, the city is in a public private partnership. we are in partnership with a private entity which will bring forth the 34th america's cup. we and others have been working closely with the event authority to move this project forward. for this project sponsor presentation i'll be joined with mr. benson. we'd like to run through a lot of our strategic highlights from the environmental review process but also to give you an overview of how the picture of the events are coming together and how we get to the funding decisions that we've been talking about today. to start out, it's been highlighted in sop of the highlights already that we were presented