parcel. there is an appeal of the determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. secondly, there is an appeal of the department of public works approval of the parcel map. both appeals are brought by the same appellant. this is on the environmental review exemption appeal. the exemptions on each are different. it is the environmental review exemption. it is the exemption and completeness of the determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. this is a legislative hearing. six votes of the board are required. our review of the appeal will determine whether the parcel map is consistent with the general plan. while both hearings involve distinctive issues and analyses, they relate to the same address and the consideration of members of the public that may wish to speak to one or both of the issues. i suggest that we consolidate both hearings into a single hearing as we just did. in order to ensure that both parties receive a fair opportunity, i suggest

with respect to parcel e-2, epa is overseeing the navy's 15-year study of this parcel. all parts of the shipyard we regulators stay deeply involved in the testing and the design and the construction step. a lot of people do not understand that all of the points laura talked about where soils were tested and groundwater were tested, that is done via a work plan sent to epa and the state first. we review it. we approve it. and then the navy implements it only after epa approves that. because of the extensive testing program we believe the navy has quickly identified the type, location and the depth of contamination in parcel e-. based on all of the data about the contamination the navy evaluated a number of alternatives and epa supports the preferred remedy for the same reasons that laura described. it is protective of the local community and the ecology of san francisco bay, uses the best technologies and is consistent with the future land use. so, now we are interested. we are in the public comment period. we are interested in what the public suggestions are about how t

each parcel will be independent. the category local exemption itself says that when you're looking at subdivisions, you have to consider future development. you cannot do a subdivision if a lot is more than 20% silk. -- 20% slope. the administrative agency recognized the subdivisions have impact because they are filmset -- because there facilitating development. you do not have the freedom to say, we do not want to look at what comes next, we just want to look at step one and want to pretend as if there is not a step too. you cannot say for certain that there is no possible environmental impact. by deferring, you limit the options for mitigation, limit your ability to control the environmental consequences of the project. president chiu: are you going to use any of your time so that we can hear from your expert? >> he was the next 10 minutes because the issues are substantive. i can use whatever time is left on the substance of the technical issues. president chiu: any more questions to the council? thank you very mu

parcel. then they changed their minds and decided in january that it wanted a two-lot subdivision with a portion of the lot for townhomes. in 1998, the revised the project again to make a three-lot subdivision and development of lower calhoun terrorist as a single-family home. the department was dealing with development proposals throughout the process. president chiu: i want to make one comment. it was interesting how, for this analysis, you do not refer to the 20% slope, but in 1998, reading your own the karmas letter, it says that while it is true that minor projects are exempt from ceqa, this one has over 20% slope so we are required to review it. since the proposal raises slope stability issues and is linked to future development, the department determines that the environmental review should analyze both the subdivision and any proposed development as one project. >> that is true because there is -- there was a development proposal at that time. they're looking at the subdivision and de

where is parcel e-2? you will see that it is the southwern part of the shipyard including 48 acres of shoreline and lowland coastal area. ok. the history. e-2 was created between the early 1940's and late 1960's by filling in with various materials including soil, crushed bedrock, saidments, construction debris and trash and waste. i have a series of photos that show the progression of how this land was created. so you will see in this photo, you can see the 1935 shoreline at the top and what is most of now e-2 was bay. it was filled land. if you follow along to 155 it is more filled in. 1965, even more filled in. 1969, you can see all that is left that is not land is the drainage channel. and 1974 is pretty much how it looks today. it was bay. it was filled in with soil and the middle area you can see the green outline is the landfill boundary. >> you went through quickly what e- is contaminated with. i know there are a number of parcels that had heavy metals and other wastes. can you go over in more det

they are tied to the parcels and the rules would be different than it would for a single parcel. that is why the applicant was to do that. president chiu: you made a reference to some supreme court case that made reference to it if they could be an impact, we need to fight against the categories that specifically refer to that. >> the supreme court says it cannot sekhmet approvals. there are not categorical all exemptions, but there is negative declaration exemption and the general concept that even if it is a line on a piece of paper, and whether it is annexation or sunning, you cannot then wait for a project some metal -- project submittal. bozon vs. lasko is the classic supreme court case that says if you have a project that is the first step in the approval and brings momentum for a project, you cannot segment it. in ceqa, if you divide of a project into pieces, here you are doing a subdivision. you cannot point to direct impact yet, but it is opening the door to a different kind of development which would otherwise occur. as your staff as noted, we do not want to divide thes

from 84 parcels them 82 parcels. one is an apartment building, and the other is a professional building. they are located in an area that would not have produced a great deal of money, i think a grand total of $4,700 out of the $2,000 that would be generated. this just reflects the deletion of those two parcels and the technical amendments that need to be made to assure the completion of the benefit districts. i am not sure, madam city attorney. should we adopt this minutes before the hearing, or should we adopt them after? i think most folks know we are going to do this, so i would make the motion to adopt those amendments now. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd has made a motion to amend, seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. colleagues, if we can take those amendments without objection? that shall be the case. so at this time, we are going to hear from any speakers who wish to speak in support or in opposition of this disaster. we will first hear from speakers in support, and then we will hear from individuals who op

that's if, a big if voters approve measure i, that's the parcel tax initiative. that doesn't mean there wasn't any finger-pointing tonight. there was. >> many people in the citia appear to have given up. they have given up on everybody. >> not everybody is giving up on oakland. the african-american community showing up in force at the council meeting as lawmakers debate measure i, a proposed pearsle tax billed as the answer to fund public safety. >> i think the parcel tax has a better opportunity to pass if the people of the city could see some type of connection like the curfews and the loitering and what not. >> they were tabled two weeks ago and that gave him no other choice but to resign last week. now a lot is riding on whether they will approve a tax designed to raise $60 million over five years. that includes rehiring the police we lost and includes reopening the senior center hours that were lost and includes lighting. it includes technology for the police so they can do a better job of catching people who commit crimes. >> some believe he has a lot ridin

the planning department does not have control over those parcels. and that is there an opportunity through a separate process to revisit the heights in that zone that redevelopment controlled? >> good morning. senior project manager with the redevelopment agency. you know how long it takes to go through a process like that. of course there's always an opportunity to do that, but we are in the process of selling those processed -- those parcels right now. i do not think it is within the tjpa's plan to go through a separate rezoning process. if you think it is too short, i see where you're coming from, but it is pretty tall. one in particular is zoned for that height because it is adjacent to a new public park we are building. they were not put there because they are some magic number. they were put there as a result of an analysis that showed wanted to get a certain amount of sunlight on the new open spaces we are creating, and that is why they are zoned that way. >> i like your vision. transit center is achieving the cultural prominence that medieva

it is a large parcel of land that could be put to some secondary use. sites and no primary purpose would beneficial natural surroundings. we have laguna honda. right now, we do not see it as having a primary utility use, but it does have natural surroundings and we need to decide how to manage that parcel of land are in the future. shaughnessy boulevard -- and changed the conversation slightly -- sorry. i put in another slide. he owes shaughnessy boulevard, we do own a portion of the land adjacent to the boulevard. it is a steve, -- it is a steep hilly area with no value. i cannot recall a free on it because of the municipal railway or if because there were closing the park. >> there was the a plan b. >> yes, and it's going to bring that up. president vietor: so these sites with no primary utility purpose, with beneficial natural surroundings, they're just kind of wild places where we do not have anything going on there, right? >> at laguna honda, some things are going on. there are some flat areas that and we have for beekeeping and things of that natu

i imagine for many of the large parcels that are to be developed, that that kind of work would just be included as part of a street improvements permit that we would just be getting. wondering with the assumption is. >> at this point, the assumption is this price tag is if we had to pay for all of it. you are correct that many of the major developments would be required as a condition of their approval and existing requirements to build those. given that there are a relatively limited number of new development that will be built in the area covering a small minority of the linear footage of these blocks, it is a small percentage. the transit tower is a big development that has several for outages. a lot of the district is already built out, so we will do that calculation before this is all said and done about how much of the streets we think will be built by developments. we will definitely do that and get that out, but ultimately, even with the developers, there will probably still be a shortfall, and we will have to prioritize these improvements and probably seek additional funding a