through herbicide application and the like, those areas simply need to be capped with a couple of feet of clean soil that would be between the impacted areas and the bottom of garage slabs which are in and of itself a mitigation layer. certainly there is no gardening activity that is allowed in soils like this that are impacted. it has very clear guidelines that restrict development of cites like this. there is also several thousands yards of soil that was impacted at a higher level taken to a class 2 facility

for the safe storage of those materials. >> but the stuff that was less contaminated but is still contaminated is still there and there was a layer of clean soil put on top or cap. >> the dtsc regulatory requirement for any site in the state that is going to have a subsequent use to the industrial use that was the or guardianship -- origin of the contamination has very specific requirements on the uses on this sight where there was soil contamination to herbicide and pesticide there are requirements laid out for the capping of those impacted soils bike a couple -- by a couple of feet, i believe a two 2-foot cap before the rest

of the developments activities can take place. >> further questions? do eye -- i have any other comments? >> this is for the people at home. even though the project is 20 acres, it's about 90 acres going towards this place. it's next to the santa fe and later on the cal trans operation. where a lot of soil was used. so the land is like this. whatever is contaminated here is going to contaminate the aquifer and ort ground water. you can do whatever you want to. dtsc has certain

standards that have been approved wrong again and again and hunters points. let's not beat the horse dead and revive it. my thing is let's have a conscious. we do not need to put people by this rail yard with the trains going on, millions of vehicles on the road. you need to check it out. we need to address quality of life issues. it has been stated with some of the questions, this entire water shed is polluted. it maybe remediated and mitigated on one side, someone may have signed off on it. the entire area is polluted. now, in san francisco we are supposed to

have standards, but most importantly they are supposed to be compassionate. we could not put people in harms way. the precaution tells us to don't put any life in harms way. it's the law. thank you very much. >> does any commissioner have any strong feelings at this juncture? my only comment is that i think the basic issues seem to be concurred on and the question is the adequacy of the work of the dtsc and their control of the development agreement. i don't know the dtsc. that's my only

question. what i would ask for based on knowledge that we have been dealing with them in carrying out their role, are they an effective entity? do we take comfort in the fact that they have been involved and will continue to be involved. >> do you have anything? >> i just wanted to point out what our role is so maybe we want to clarify our role because i know that we may have some opinions about the project and i think the only concern i have or would have is when we actually work with

all the other agencies that is responsible for approving this. we want to make sure when the infrastructure is placed in that area that if something were to happen and our workers would have to because we would have to dig that we don't impact our workers as well. but, it's sort of, you know, the jurisdictions who are responsible for the clean up. we want to make sure that if it does happen that they actually make sure that everything is satisfactory to them and to make sure that they hold the developer to a high standard so that the citizens who occupy the space and also the city who work in that area as well are not impacted. so and that's something that i guess we are

going to be working towards. >> the city attorneys office. to be clear on the question of whether or not the preexisting hazardous materials have been addressed, it is addressed in the environmental impact report. there are specific mitigation measures that the planning department and their technical staff identified to mitigate potential impacts to the environment associated with putting housing and new retail uses in a brownfield site. they have signed off on it and that their findings are before you and you are being asked to adopt essentially a firm the planning commission commission with respect to the eir and the mitigation

measures that couldn't just rely on the states regional board, but on our own department of public health role in monitoring that. in addition what you are being asked is they are going to be building infrastructure that ultimately will be designed and built pursuant to plans that your staff approve and that then once they will according to specifications you sign off on, the board of supervisors will be asked to accept and at that point you will have the responsibility for maintaining and operating those new utilities. it's clear in the documents that are before you in the infrastructure plan that you have that discretion as part of the final maps that will be signed off on, as part of the plan review that if there are conditions required to make

sure that your trenches stay clean that you will be able to enforce those. at the end of the day you are accepting that we are part of this over arching regulatory system that it's within the state's authority to decide how clean is clean and what's the best way to move forward. frankly even if you didn't like that, it's not really your role. i think that's what the general manager is saying. you wouldn't be able to dispute the state sign off of a remediation plan. you could object to taking infrastructure under those conditions, but that's, that would be certainly exception to the way that we conduct ourselves in the city here. >> would you like to speak again? >> thank you. john from the

universe of paragon. two helpful points that maybe helpful to the discussion. no. 1, under the dtsc regulations soil and ground water management plan are necessary to be prepared before construction begins of infrastructure of each phase of the development which means there is yet another layer of review and assurance that the dtsc would like to have of what exactly the soil and ground water conditions are at the locations that are proposed for phasing and development. then also just as a reference point for the commission to be an aware that we worked very closely with your team on the sunny dale sewer extension project that was done at the south west corner of this site and

actually was constructed in the middle of the ground water plume. so your staff spent several years with other city agencies and with the dtsc for understanding what the work for health and safety and the need for the watering program to put that sewer tunnel down at sunny vale and addressing it and having mitigations during that construction period. i would just for reference ask you to take a look back with mr. manford wong who i believe ran that project and it was, i think, an example of the puc's cooperation working with

thedtsc for understanding the conditions on this site and come up with a program that could work within it. i just offer that for reference. thank you. >> to the general manager, would it make sense to continue this item to the next meeting? >> michael crone in deputy city manager. there is a lot to go with the process for them to get their permits to build. this creates the framework that was outlined for them to go forward get those other approvals. so you are delaying the project -- delaying the approval is for

a reason that has nothing to do with actual permits for the project to be constructed tomorrow. it's a development agreement is what it is now. that's all it is. >> the other thing i wanted to, i know that ken mentioned that this is something that the mayor wanted to expedite. so if you have given the fact that there are a lot of opportunities for us to weigh in on the certain areas that norene mentioned what would the extra two 2 weeks give you because we will be delaying it for 2 weeks. i would like to know what other information you would need in order to vote on it. >> an environmental perspective. i think there would be more information around the soil and ground water conditions that were referenced and dtsc a little

bit more of what happened and how they really feel and how deeply they looked. i just have a better understanding. i raise purely from an environmental perspective raises concerns even around a two 2 feet cap you look at our workers building around the trenches is two feet 2 feet and it just feels it's a little bit makes me slightly nervous in praufg -- approving a development agreement. i understand we need housing for sure and that is a major priority for the city. i can see you making a face. i can welcome you to come up and we can talk about it if you want. i represent the environmental constituency on this commission and when i hear about the issues that are being raised, i want to make sure we have done our due diligence. >> going back there has been

an environmental impact report on the site. all the issues that have been raised have been brought up in the reports and mitigation measures in place for those. bringing the people that have signed off in it we can do that but it has been addressed in a public document. too concern i would have is not our jurisdiction to deal with the e ir. >> i understand since we are responsible for the site that our workers are protected. the people living in the building are protected. >> ken with the mayor's office on economic and workforce development. if it's helpful, my personal history with this

project goes back to 1999 and the state department on toxic control which is the state agency which does have jurisdiction over this has been involved in this for the last 14 years and they have had a very public process. they have had many meetings in the public and signed off on everything. the only thing i'm not able to stand here and tell you the scientific details. it not my field of expertise. what i can assure you is that every process has been followed. it's taken 14 years. we are very anxious to move this along. we do desperately need the housing. >> okay. i'm going to end discussion now. okay. one last comment.

>> when i come is to a meeting and i see an expert and now he's working at the mayor's office, he was with city planning. audio questions when he was there. and you know what, he made a statement to me when i talked about what was going on, what the organization was trying to call for is called red. i said to him rg don't believe anything you read there. he says to me, if you are going to talk about him, i'm not going to talk to you. i said, baby, i don't need you to talk to me because i have the information. you all do what you want to do, but the safety of the workers also we have had workers dealing with a lot of these projects. not with his project, but with other projects that have died. we have too many people who have died when they want to call

these areas brownfield sites. those are super sites and i don't care what the city says, the anchors with the developers. that's all they want to see talk about housing but not healthy. when the young man stated like in hunters point, if you want to do a garden, you can't do no gardening bought -- because of the land. please take your time on this. don't be a rubber stamp for city planning and the mayor's office when where the money is coming from? i got questions about that too. you are all not aware of that is being spent that should have been spent in bayview hunters point but they are getting the money that the city is using. >> i already said no more discussion. i closed discussion. >> okay. i am going to make a motion to continue this item to the next meeting. do i

have a second? >> i will second it. >> okay. am i doing the right proper procedure? okay. we'll vote on that. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> it's going to be continued to the next meeting. >> with that, can i ask mr. rich, so we'd like to see this in 2 weeks. if we can just have a little more detail on what we've raised so that on my hope is that we can move this forward at the next meeting. >> the points are. can you give me a quick talking point? >> yeah, i just want tools to

-- to have a better understanding. i don't need too much scientific detail. >> the workers cleaning up the site? >> the developers say they can't guaranteed garden on this site. my worry is that there may be a child playing in it. >> first we talk about the workers and residents? >> 1700 units will be put there. there is a 2 -foot cap. >> you mentioned children, i'm concerned about that. >> if there is 1700 people living on this site. >> once they move in? >> yeah. once they move in. >> we see people moving in the next 2-3 years. >> you are going to have a report back to us on the soil

conditions? >> what i can do is have the representative from the city health department or the dtsc assuming we can get them on the date of your next hearing come and reassure you and repeat what mr. sharp told you and you will be hearing from the regulators. >> so we are conducting a quasi i eir on the public utilities. >> no. >> all the circumstances issues you mentioned are eir issues. >> i just want information.o who ultimately does the speaker -- eir? >> how many agencies will be involved? >> the eir is prepared by the planning department, by consultants of the planning commission and by the state

department of health and dtsc will make sure the findings are correct. >> i have no interest in reopening the eir. i just want assurance because some of the things i heard from the developer made me concerned which i didn't even know this agenda item were issues. the ground water issue. just to have a better understanding from a regulate or that all is good, that they signed off on it that there is nothing and i know they have signed off on the eir to have a better understanding since we will be there and our workers are there in that space. >> to make sure we can get these folks at the hearing. i would like to work with your staff between now and then. we hope we can get this through the next time. i want to make sure we are answering the correct questions. we'll make sure we are addressing your concerns to bring the right

people to the hearing. >> great, thanks. i appreciate that. thanks very much. >> i will change my vote from no to aye for transparency purposes. >> okay. all right. moving along. madam secretary, could you please reese the items for closed session. city clerk: item 15 #shgs conference with legal counseling existing litigation. item 16 conference with legal council pursuant to cal government code session and item 17 legal count pursuant and fem 18 and item 19. >> any discussion regarding items? seeing none, motion to assert. >> motion to

>> we are now back into open session. the announcement following closed session is item 15, no action. item 16, no action. item 17 no action and item 18 no action. may i have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> do not disclose. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. any new business? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>is now called

to order roll call please. >> haney. >> here. >> mendoza. >> here. >> norton. here. >> miss wynns? >> here. >> thank you. >> fewer? >> yes. >> miss wei.

>> here. >> and mr. logan. >> here. >> thank you. >> please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> approval of the board minutes, the regular meeting of may 27, and the special meeting for june the 3, may i have a motion and a second. >> i move the adoption of both. >> thank you and any corrections? see none we will call the votes. >> miss wei. >> yes. >> mr. logan. >> yes. >> mr. lany. >> yes. >>