ceqa requires stream line review for some project. the preview must be focused on examining whether there's significant impacts from the project that were not anticipated in the prior easter neighborhood's eir. one of the main arguments made is that the department did conduct up to date analysis that considers the effects of changes in easter neighborhood and eir was issue. we have performed new analysis to address these factors. as the eir disclosed, adoption of the rezoning would allow for a substantial increase in growth throughout the easter neighborhoods. with total increase of potentialousing supply about the 26,500 units. eir determined the growth would have significant impact on land use, shadow, noise and air quality. the question now under the streamline review is whether this project will result in environmental impacts that are new or more severe than those disclosed in the easter neighborhood eir. to address this question the department projected-analysises. for example, the transportation analysis uses the regional vehic

>> yes, it is. >> what exactly is ceqa, what does it stand for and what is ceqa? >> ceqa is the california environmental quality act, and it requires lead agencies, such as the san francisco planning department, to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed development project. >> president cohen: and when you're evaluating the environmental impacts, do you take into consideration existing businesses? >> yes, we do. they are described as part of the environmental setting. >> president cohen: all right, thank you. and did you take into consideration the banya? >> yes, we did. the banya is described in the environmental setting throughout the eir. >> president cohen: thank you. >> and the responses to comments document, we identified the business by name. >> president cohen: thank you. and mr. lee, what exactly is this body supposed to do? there's been an appeal that is before us. what is the exact lens that we are looking through to evaluate this appeal? >> your task is to determine if the eir is adequate, accurate, and complete, and if you find that is the c

even with this new information it doesn't require under ceqa. i think in the spirit of fairness and transparency and an opportunity for the public to comment, i would be in support of that suggestion that is why i wanted to ask you. on a limited timeframe given the fact that so much significant time has been put into this over all. >> president cohen: before you respond, supervisors, i don't know if one week's time would be enough. >> we don't have a meeting on october 9th. >> so it would be in two weeks. >> look to the deputy city attorney. thank you. turn your mic on. >> thank you. deputy city attorney to the president, just to clarify the record, the modification to the existing mitigation measure is not actually part of the ceqa decision before the board. it's unclear but because when it arrived and the procedural posture that we're in, what the board will be decided is whether the i.e.r., minus this latest tweak is adequate, accurate and complete under ceqa. if the board concluded that it felt that this tweaked to the mitigation measure was

the ceqa evaluation is thorough. the project will undoubtedly be a benefit to the community and can provide not only beautiful space for residents and continues to allow us an opportunity to highlight and showcase what thoughtful projects look like. colleagues, now i'd like to make a notion prove item 47 and table items 48 and 49. is there a second. madame clerk i believe we should have a roll call vote on this. >> clerk: on the motion [roll call] >> president cohen: the final environmental impact report is finally certified. madame clerk, we will now move to the legislative matters pertaining to india basins. call items 50 through 52. >> clerk: an ordinance to amend the bayview hunters plan for the mixed use project and adopt appropriate items. item number 51 is to establish appropriate findings and improve the india basin project at the approximately 28-acre site where various public benefits including 25% affordable house and 11 acres of parks and open space and making appropriate findings. >> this is for the majo

now, i'm a ceqa lawyer. when you violate ceqa rules, there are consequences. i suggest to you i don't have the chutzpah to give you legal advice but i suggest to you you should think about whether you want to violate the rules of ceqa and suffer the consequences or do the right thing and let them study the mitigations and, by the way, the planning department missed all the mitigations for a year? a year and a half? two years? how do we know there are not additional mitigations? they have looked at this less than a month. maybe two, three weeks. they haven't had time to analyze. you cannot rely on what they are saying because they haven't investigated. you cannot rely on what planning is saying because they have not investigated. do yourselves a favor and do it right. >> dear supervisors, my name is james faye. i've lived in the bayview two years and in my alarm i said everyone is a liar. i have three points. one, one newspaper said the land in hunter's point was sold to the navy by the city of san francisco for one dollar and then sold to the insider and this

is thorough, complete, comprehensive and meets the requirements of ceqa. i will address a couple of the ceqa arguments and then i will turn it over to mr. vasquez to describe the project and its merits. i would like to focus on two of the principal objections. as described in the e.i.r., all of the reports including 70 700 innes were subject to testing. they're site plans reviewed by applicable agencies and mitigation measures to address hazardous materials. the site mitigation plan or s.m.p. for 700 innes is not finalized. it must address unknown contaminants or conditions and it can be modified if and when new information arises the department of public health can and will take any pertinent information in consideration when reviewing the is m.p. they're working to assure that it addresses any contaminants. thus, although thorough and scientifically based testing indicates that radiological material is not present at the site, build has proposed protocols to look for and address any radiological contaminants if discovered. more specifically, build propos

but i'm letting you know that it doesn't fit within the scope of the analysis that we do under ceqa. it's not something that we could have expanded it to cover for this project because it's not simply something that we standardly do. >> so just to close staff's presentation, i think for the reasons that we've kind of stated, we would advise the commission to approve the project on the commissional use authorization. we acknowledge that the commission did adopt a motion of intent to disapprove, however, we would ask the commission to reconsider their initial vote in light of this new information. and a representative from the project sponsor's team is present. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. so we will open it up to the project sponsor and public comment. since we've heard this item numerous times in the past, we're going to have three minutes for project sponsor and one minute for public comment. >> i'll be very quick. same thing as last time. mark loper, reuben junius and rose on behalf of rrti. as you know, the project's ceqa clearance document was appealed to the board of su

in summary, the appeal does not identify any projects specific peculiar ceqa. its issue relies with the easter neighborhood rezoning. one final point, the project is being entitled with 10,000 square feet of pdr. it cannot be converted to retail without public note. thank you very much for your time. >> supervisor cohen: seeing there are no name on the roster for questions, i want to invite the members of the public that like to come up and speak in favor of this project. please come up and you'll have two minutes. welcome. >> i am the business property owner. i'm here to tell you we plan to stay long term. we support the plan. that's pretty much it. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. sir you already spoken. you're not able to speak. you're not able to speak because you spoke already in favor of the appeal. no. we have to keep moving. you're not able to speak. this is for people that are speaking in opposition of the appeal. if you like to speak mr. otto? any other members? seeing none. public comment is closed. thank you. thank you for your comments. lastly i wan

getting through ceqa and planning is hard. to me, this seems typical. for me, it raises no concerns. >> president brandon: thank you. >> commissioner woo ho: no further questions. >> commissioner makras: no questions. i support the motion. >> vice-president adams: check. >> i just want to say one thing. your words about veronica were beautiful. i've known veronica as anybody as long as anyone. and the fact that you are leave, i remember you from many projects. thank you for veronica and eileen's words, because sometimes we forget in the battle that we find ourselves in too often that they're really people's lives involved and veronica sanchez was a beauty. i mean, it was one hell of a lady. thank you so much for that. >> vice-president adams: tell us what is going on. i'm supportive, but i want it hear from you. sometimes developers come and staff makes a presentation, but you are a developer, i would like to hear from you. >> absolutely. thank you very much for the time, commission and commissioners. we have been working hard. i want to first of all sa

that's not considered a historic resource and under number six, for purposes of ceqa, no resource present and number six, whether the proposed project may have an adverse effect on off site historical resources such as adjacent historic properties, the answer is no. this is an issue for our community, commissioners, because housing is really needed in our neighborhood. i'm dismayed that you had to base your decision on inaccurate information on behalf of the project sponsor at that hearing. you may have reached a different conclusion with respect to housing above retail if you had the facts. it's insulting to you and unfair to our community. hopefully the project sponsor will reconsider building housing at this location? >> thank you, very much. any additional general comments? >> seeing none. we'll close general public comment. >> just a question for the director. between 2007 and now we did a historic store front survey that the property on 24th street could have been reclassified as historic because of that? >> i don't recall on the top of my head. >> there's nothing further, commissio

for item 44, it's an ordinance to create city infrastructure and to affirm the ceqa determination. to affirm the findings under the california environmental quality act and to approve other actions there with. >> president cohen: all right. thank you for that. so colleagues, we now turn to a number of items related to the formation of the infrastructure and revitalization financing district for an area in the vicinity of pier 70. it's commonly known as the hoedown yard. these items before the board today are critical to a promise that the city have made to affordab affordable housing connected to the site. forest city's pier 70 project will include 40% affordable how's, the irfd will allow the city to commit a portion of the property tax revenues generated in the hoedown yard for affordable housing. so an infrastructure and financing plan, also known as an i.f.p. has been prepared and made available to the public. and the board of supervisors in its capacity as a legislative body of the only taxing body that will allocate a taxing increment to the irfd has already approved the i.f.

>> under ceqa, there's no requirement to translate notices or documents -- >> supervisor kim: i know. that wasn't my question. i know that ceqa doesn't, but as a city where we ensure inclusion and language access, what is the department's protocol for when we translate notices in spanish and chinese? >> we translate notices upon request. >> supervisor kim: okay. i think we have to change this practice. there are too many members in san francisco that speak chinese and spanish as their primary language, and especially in a neighborhood that's as diverse as district ten, you're not doing public outreach if people can't understand the notices. i'm not going to quibble over what happened in this particular case, but i'm very concerned that the planning department doesn't have a protocol on when they provide notices in the major languages that the city requires. and so whether state law requires it or not, the city should go above and beyond because it ensures that perhaps a third of our residents don't have an opportunity to provide comment because they basically don't know about it. i ju

this is a violation of our ability to address you concerning ceqa. what do they say? they say they are going to use some kind of renewable or clean diesel. don't we have an opportunity to challenge that? can't we have an opportunity to come before planning and say they are wrong, there is no such thing?

this cautious approach and conservative approach reflects what many view as a best practice for ceqa, where all feasible measures are imposed on the project, but analysis does not necessarily factor in the effectiveness if there is any uncertainty about the implementation or effectiveness of the measure. this project is required to implement the feasible air quality measures that reflect best practices and you've heard that back med has proposed some changes or tweaks to the existing mitigation measures to make them more stringent, if it is feasible, and it's possible to get renewable fuel, to add it into the mix of the things that are required as best practices for air quality mitigation. turning to green action's objection to a statement of overriding considerations, i would note that many if not most of the large projects in san francisco have air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. the objection taken to the extreme would be count tore a core principal of development, mainly that projects like this, mixed use, open space and parks project, should be in sites like india

we had a concern, and some of the numbers, while not significant from a ceqa finding, i think we felt needed to be looked again to really, again, bridge that gap that i talked about in my last comments between the code as it stands and the real impacts that people feel every day. and i think what we're hearing from or what we've heard from the community is, you know, there is pain, there is current and historic inequality that's happened in this community, and there's projects that is taking advantage of some loopholes and other things that's not providing the community input that's needed to desperately in this city. sitting down with some of the planning staff and reviewing this more, there's a few thing i want to name. first, i hope the community hears that we recognize that this project has an impact, an impact against those children. i also just want to say that i'm grateful for the additional context. i think that, you know, we brought up the issue of being concerned that there wasn't a deep enough look taken at the impact, and the department kind of went to work really looking

this is a violation of our ability to address you concerning ceqa. what do they say? they say they are going to use some kind of

at the beginning of the package and this is reaffirming, one, adopting environmental findings under ceqa. and, two, granting a permit to gsw arena llc for the golden state warriors event center at mission bay south, blocks 29-32. so, i'm finally done, and i will introduce chief operating officer, stephen collins. he's representing the project tonight and can discuss the amendment in further detail. >> good evening, commissioners, director bleiman. i'm the chief operating officer for gsw arena llc. by way of background, i started with the warriors in may, 2015, and prior to that, spent 13 years at madison square garden overseeing a variety of venues for madison square garden, including the l.a. forum, chicago theater, beacon theater, and radio city music hall. and another 10 or 12 years of similar experience before that, but i won't bore with you play resume. as we start off tonight, i want to make sure that we're thanking maggie, who has been fantastic in her office and the homeowners, residents, association, local businesses, ucsf and southern station, which we'll get to later in the pr

the project was determined to be categorically exempt for ceqa. to date as of yesterday we received 12 signed letters of support for the proposed project. the department finds it to be code compliant and recommends approval as proposed. this concludes my presentation. >> d.r. requester. thank you, mr. winslow. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am hear to express my concern about the proposed -- >> excuse me. please speak into the mic. and pull the mic towards you. and then just pull that -- just position it. >> -- the property and since 2011. our major concerns for the proposal is, one is the extra shadows overcast on to our backyard. this is the google map. you can see from here this is our house and this is 2420. and then this house here is the same land and not show -- and shorter than the others. this is the same depth. and our morning sun is on to their open space and the backyard. and in the afternoon because 2420 is longer and tall trees on the side, we are losing that afternoon sun. it depends on the sunshine on the open space in the bac

know, i want to be respectful of everyone's opportunity to speak, but i -- we're not dealing with the ceqa issues today, we're dealing with the plan -- i'm sure we will hear those same talking points tomorrow. mr. elberling. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this project is not proposed -- the housing part is an incredibly sweetheart deal for building and should not go forward. if they had started with 14% of the unit available to low and very low households, and another 4% to middle-income houses, and then added 7% to get to the 25% number, that would be a great program, but that is not what they did. they include out the inclusionary ordinance. all the rest is going to be basically 100% of median and above. it's very clear that this is intentional class discrimination against the poor people of the southeast of san francisco and in particular, it's going to make any homeless housing in this project highly unlikely. even worse when you look at the few calculations that they have inserted into the language, the actual amounts that they pay when they fee out somehow would only be about two th

second thing ceqa said, and they have a substantiative impact on the project or other mitigations, you must send it back to the planning commission to deal with that, and in this situation we have at least two. number one, the eir says that the reason why they didn't have to do radioactive testing is because historical records said there was no radioactive waste on that plot. we just found out in parcel "a," where the historical records say there was no radioactive waste, some wound up there one way or another. it's imprudent and ignores the situation that says we have to look at something other than historical records to determine whether or not there's radiation. second, in the original we had a school, we had 60,000 more square feet of commercial, now we have no school on this plot and we have 30% more density, which is fine, i'm not against that, but it deserves -- the public deserves an opportunity to understand all these facts, comment on these facts, and recommend mitigations. thank you. [ bell rings ] >> president cohen: next speaker. >> hi. my name is justin avery, and i'm a r