mr. mr. vasquez and his company are excellent people. they could be compensated for their investment in this property and make this a world class park. then everybody in the city of san francisco, in california, in the country, in the world could enjoy it. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any additional speakers on this item? okay. with that -- oh . >> good afternoon. thanks for hearing me speak. i'm thomas fowler. i go to the banya, and i'm not here for the view, but when you see this space, it's very clear that it was a landfill, and with waters rising over the next 80 years, hard to believe that it's not going to rise to some of those levels. and there is a -- very little i have -- i'm hearing about the environmental impact of all of this, and i don't know how they're planning on cleaning up, you know, the toxins of the past, but i want housing for people, and 25% of low-income sounds great. you know, it would be ideally 100% affordable housing for the people of san francisco, but, you know, i see people rolling their eyes, so -- you know, i do believe that the cityscape would change and -- if it's towering over the hunters point. they have these 160-foot towers put up and everything gets approved today or whenever, then, a lot of -- a lock of fo foresight in the environmental impact would be devastating to the hunters point community. because like other members had said, there's current issues going on with the safety of the people that live there, and there does need to be growth there. there will be growth, but there's no rush to the decision on this project, so i believe, and i urge you to look a little bit further into a better plan and a better project for the future and not this proposed one currently. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any additional public speakers on this item? okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: so first, i want to thank president cohen, and i want to thank all of you for taking your time to come out and share your perspective. a j the word jewel has been used to describe this community, and it is a beautiful jewel, a place to call home, but it's great that you're engaged in the shaping of this area in a way that will both benefit and meet your needs. and also, i think an exciting development for the rest of the city. i had the pleasure of walking this project twice this week -- just this week in in fact. one time with community members, and i thank those community members for inviting me in and this is also with project sponsors. i want to honeor the folks tha have come out and make sure that we are addressing some of the core concerns that have been brought out, and i'd love for a combination of city staff and the project sponsor to answer some of the following issues. the first one is the concern around landfill on this land and the issue of potentially if there is a higher building height on this property, whether or not it will be safe for future -- for -- structurally safe. the second is concerns about the precedent that the s.u.d. would set, and just, you know, maybe there's -- from the -- from the planning department, just explanation about s.u.d.s and how they work just so people can understand that. and third, from the project sponsor, i've heard a lot about banya. i'd love for you to talk a little bit about how you've tried to engage banya, and just answer those concerns, as well. thanks. >> vice president melgar: will the project sponsor come up and -- thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm courtney pasch, the senior project manager with build. so i'll address, i think, your last question first about the interactions with the banya spa, ownership, and managers. so before i started on this project back in 2014, the project staff from build met from the banya to try to understand, to try to work together to understand what their primary concerns were about future development at the site. we heard from them that they were primarily concerned about their views from the upper deck and privacy. in march of 2015, after i came on board, myself and the s.o.m. staff went out to the banya to take some photographs from their decks so we could do some photo simulations to see what the buildings would look like from their decks. over the next few months, we evaluated several options internally to present to the banya. these options included moving around our buildings in front of them to ensure that they would have a view corridor to the water from their upper deck, relocate the banya spa to a different location within our site, build a roof deck on top of their existing roof deck so that they would be above the -- higher than the buildings kind of directly between them and the bay. we offered, you know, we had a dialogue about those. the owner didn't really seem interested in any of them at that time, but we continued to offer and talk about them and try to understand what they wanted. we also offered in an e-mail to include them in our rezoning effort to increase the height of their building, allow for a commercial kitchen that i believe they had already had in there. they declined that offer. in september of 2015, we met again with mikel, the owner, to show them our revised plans, and we reoriented, without -- without his, you know, direct input, we reoriented the buildings in front of his buildings to ensure that there was direct view corridor to the bay. we also moved some of our buildings around so there's now a 55 foot parcel break that we're calling it directly adjacent to his building on the north side; which is, you know, about as wide as it is tall. and after the last meeting, we met with mikel at s.o.m. to talk about the revised plans because it appeared that he was looking at a previous version of our plan. we continued to work with him and we want to continue to work with him. we just need to -- to understand what it is that -- that he's asking for. >> vice president melgar: okay. great. >> commissioner johnson: so the next question was around the thinking of the density of the 14 stories in question. can you talk a little bit about that? >> sure. first, i'd like to talk about the fill. because in 1956, this site was open water. it was subsequently filled -- the site was owned by a grading contractor, and all of the -- we own a lot of water parcels as well as the current filled land, which\ are very, very available because they're not worth much, if anybody wants them. in those days, you could take materials from a job site and dump them into the bay if you owned those parcels, and that is what happened in this point. when the cut through the landfill and the cut through daly city happened, it was brought and dumped to this site. so between 1949 and 1952 and when this site was filled. we have gone through complete e.i.r. now, wefr ae gone through -- we've gone through various tests on the site. various contaminants are at the site because they were there subsequent to the fill. it was used as an informal dumping dump for many years. so you've got construction debris, you've got lead paint, you've got a variety of things. that being said, we are -- we have a program in place and are required by law to mitigate all of that toxic material so that there is no doubt that that has been done. the -- as to nuclear waste, we've looked very carefully -- believe me, we've looked very carefully at that. it concerns us, as well. there is no indication, once again, in thousands of pages of analysis and testing that nuclear waste or any materials having to do with the decontamination of ships on hunters point was brought here or dumped here. during the course of something, if we see something, we will stop, and we will figure out what's there, and we will mitigate it, without question. in terms of the density, you know, there were a couple of issues there. one is the tradeoff is obviously higher density means more open space. that's quid pro quo. the amount of density that was available to us on the site, we actually didn't take advantage of all of it. we didn't take advantage of the 2 million feet. we got 1.5 million feet of square footage. we put that back towards innes. the tall buildings that are there now are -- will sit on bed rock, they will not sit on fill because we pulled back towards the original shoreline. that was deliberately done. these buildings, there's no issue of safety in these buildings. but the -- in order to provide a five-acre park and pay for it with this project, a totally public park, permanently public park, an enhanced shoreline, a connection to other parks in the area, working with r.p.d., we pushed the density on the proposed site, and that included two 14-story buildings. those buildings, we don't believe are out of scale with the neighborhood. we're in san francisco. this is not the flat earth. there's a large cliff right behind innes, and the sites behind that go up rapidly to more than 200 feet. so we believe that there's context for tall buildings. we believe that it provides the ability to provide open space. which thi we think it's good planning. we think it's smart to form the project in this way, and, you know -- and it was four years of planning. none of this was out of the hot, and all of it involved the community. does that answer all your questions? all right. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. commission commissioner ko commissioner koppel? >> planning staff, i wanted to elaborate further on commissioner john's question on the landfill. we did have a geology and soils section in the initial study. it it's attached to the draft e.i.r., and that was scoped out, meaning we found less than significant impact on geology and soils, because any project development that would be required to conform with the san francisco building code which ensures safety in all -- for all construction in the city. we have standards for their -- their -- they have to analyze and -- and -- and clear the geotechnical studies for each and every building. [please stand by] >> i remember him documenting that the eastern side of the city will be completely transformed. i also toured the site earlier this week and a lot of thing became clear to me then that weren't before. the fact is that just driving down the road to get to our meeting place, there was a culdesac road around it. it's setting the tone already for this had huge empty parcel that can completely be developed. i think bill has done all the right thing what they are given to pull back as much as they can with the density and leave as much open space as possible. there are hills and cliffs just behind the site which won't leave any ridiculously protruding towers as they are being referred to. the make up of what we're looking at is on par for what's best for the neighborhood. looking forward to hearing what other commissioners are saying. very confident that the e.i.r. is adequate and looking forward to seeing this project more. >> commissioner moore: i i have followed this project for the entire time. i walked the site and spent time with the community to hear them. at that time it was like coming into a fishing village i thinking where am i. i was hard it find and two very unusual to get there and see a this was possible. now that all of the other projects are filling the southern border from planning this project is a natural and i think it's time to collect. i'm amazed about how it has been able to really connect 70 down to bayview and shipyard. i think it's in a complete response to the larger ideas of developing the southern front. sitting on the city's northern water front. i see first ideas really dealing with developing san francisco as a waterfront city. i believe that the work is thorough. i believe the work is creative. i'm intrigued by the sizing of buildings. i'm very intrigued a the building height. it's not actually protruding above the cliffs beyond but it nestles in front of it. i think that's a positive sign. i'm sensitive to the questions that community is asking. i appreciate commissioner johnson actually digging deeper and having experts talk to the particular aspects of it. we have actually supported development agreements and certainties that come with supporting them. many of the larger projects in the last eight or ten years are all based on that same model. i assume he will come up and speak to it. i'm very confident that the document that thorough planning effort are all spot on and i feel very comfortable of supporting them including the guidelines package. at this moment, i'm in full support of all aspects of the project and i like to also say that i believe that they presented themselves as extremely responsible developer who has been open to questions and challenges. i think that it needs to be said. this is a project that has challenges and we need to be sure that what we are approving indeed has a very high likely build as we are approving it. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i have one question for ms. richardson. can you come up a second? i was really trying to understand the history and what you were trying to say in the three minutes. can you expand on what you said. >> yes please. i appreciate your time. when the site -- when a.e.s. was going to build the power plant. we've been very prodevelopment. we went to port of san francisco to the planning commission. we ask them. this neighborhood is a mixed use. we welcome houses. we put together the bayview master plan which you have in your 100-year anniversary. no neighborhood in san francisco. you have residents, youth, seniors and workers trying to create this vision. you have that plan. we created the india basin neighborhood plan. i wish everybody here can look at that. we have housing in there. we have all the mixed use element. that is not the case. >> commissioner richards: what's the difference between what was in front of us today? >> that zoning, we have shown -- [indiscernible] i wish you can go. how many the commissioners have chance to be there. you all need to go to india basin. we can create housing. we're already building house. we are creating the bulk. we are very pro-development. you can create housing and i would like for you to see the plan that the community has put together. you will be impressed. >> when you say dangerous, do you mean physically dangerous or economically dangerous or social justice dangerous? >> let me qualify that. the ecosystem, we have identified places where you can build houses. we have done all that. it's in plan that we have given you. innes avenue is only two blocks long. all the developers that have come out there, they have the zoning that you have. you will be creating this blank wall. it is bad planning. i know the pressure on you to go ahead and do that. it has opened up spaces of discussions where do we go from here. that place, innes place, it's not place you will be able to build that 16-stories. what is behind you today is to up the zoning of that area. dozen in the compatible. it is not good planning. the ecosystem that one of the people mentioned, it is a place that we want to create restaurants and everything that is in that plan. >> commissioner richards: are any developments in the southern waterfront -- if you looked a the planning and developments from mission bay all the way down. i'm not sure what area it covers. what actually looks like the plan calls for. what areas? >> i worked on mission bay pier 70 up to shipyard. all those areas. we have the master plan for that. i was here supporting pier 70. i was here supporting work space, everything. have you ever seen that plan? director has the plan. >> commissioner richards: if you move around and keep going south in candlestick point, 120 and 1 foot buildings buildings -- 14t building. >> if you look at the candlestick where the stadium used to be and you look at the area, they came out here. that is not the same place. it cannot introduce those kind of elements. not everywhere in san francisco is the same. even though we cannot treat everywhere in san francisco is the same. you have the greatest opportunity you'll have on broadway. we have identified places. some of the people do not want homeless out there. we were here saying no, bring it. we cannot accommodate that? we are always pro-development and pro housing. people should not mischaracterize what we are talking about. i would have you go there to study bayview and look at the plan that we have. together it has a lot of housing more than anywhere in san francisco. richard >> commissioner richards: can you comment on this plan? >> i think the will be helpful to look at the plan for the shipyard in candlestick point. there are buildings there similar to this project, there are low rise and high-rise buildings. the candlestick point has buildings over 30 stories. all these projects have had a combination of high-rise and low-rises and mid-rises. as it was said earlier, the high-rises do two things. they free up more land and they provide certain amount of density that help pay for the amenities. the combination of those two things, led us to believe that that combination works. it pays for the amenities and frees up land. all these projects are pulled well back from the edge of the water. that's why the high-rises make sense. >> commissioner richards: the thing that startles me, all these other projects have been a love fest. here we have this one project in this one specific spot. i'm trying to understand what's the difference? can you comment on that? >> i really don't fully understand the difference. >> commissioner richards: the direct said, we have height in the southern waterfront up to 300 feet in candlestick point. i think one of the questions -- what's the difference between this project and the shipyard. there's no radioactivity on it. we heard mr. vasquez tell us that. i think one of the issues is, some of this trust around the contamination and people saying there's no dig sign next to where they live. i think community kind of like wow, we just did this a few years ago. who knows what's going on here. mr. vasquez and his company so great. they are a local company. there maybe more falsified results. i think that's where we're getting the anxiety this. we're living through the social justice. i get what the community is saying. the question i have is, how do we prevent that from happening again what happened at the shipyard? is there an independent verifier that the test results go through that verifies mr. vasquez says there's no radioactivity. >> we didn't hire at th tetra tr one. for two, there is an independent body that verifies the materials that come off the site. during grading, we done multiple borings on the site already. that's how we know what's there. the question now becomes during construction, how do we identi