the e.i.r. two weeks ago. commission secretary has also distributed a summary handout which i will refer you to later appear copies of the handout are available for members of the public on the table to my left. today we are here to provide an opportunity for the commission to receive public testimony, discussed historic resources issues pertaining to this project and to formulate any comments you may wish to submit to the planning department on the draft e.i.r. a little bit about the project, the project sponsor proposes to redevelop approximately a 29- acre site along the central bayside waterfront with a variety of land uses. the proposed project would include 5.4 million gross square feet of development. given the size and complexity of this proposal, we have asked a project sponsor team to give a brief overview to arrange the commission members of the public to the proposed project and we will do that in a few minutes. i would like to provide you with a brief summary of the findings of the d

the whole e.i.r. should be redone and meet california state standards to be can at a good healthy level because this project is just going to endanger more lives than you're going benefit. thank you. >> i'm a resident of the shipyard and live there with my wife and two children. i'm sharing a picture from the navy and the pink buildings is where the navy has identified probable nuclear waste and this was not identified as having radiation and it was recently tested and radiation was found. the red area is the plot that's going to be developed which is directly next to an area the navy has identified as having radiation which is a radio active dumping site. there's no border between these two properties. there's a chain link fence. it seems inconceivable given the information we've gotten since the draft e.i.r. nine -- to the fine e.i.r. that this could release radio active particles in the area. i'm not 100% behind how this revision to the e.i.r.'s happening. i don't think it follow city rules. the pl

one measure in the e.i.r. requires offset payments to back med, who we heard from today, or a project to offset emissions. e. i. r. does not assume that emissions will be reduced by the measure because the project sponsor cannot control it as a payment to back med. 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 overrid

the e.i.r. is missing areas of study, it is no longer viable as a tool for evaluating cumulative impacts. so does this project have impacts that are accumulatively considerable? the eastern neighborhood plans studied three housing projection options and recommended a preferred kwauquantity of 1,696 housing units in the mission from 2008 to 2025. however the study never anticipated the number of more thanes of more than 2,054 in plan c. or the impacts of higher housing production. over 3,000 units have been built or are currently in the pipeline, and we have seven years more to go in the plan. what are the cumulative impacts of pipeline projects? we don't know. the plan has not cumulatively analysised the effect of this project, the 226 units being built across or the other pipeline projects. as of 2018 quarter two, san francisco has exceeded overall housing production goals. san francisco has exceeded its goals for above moderate income outside housing and built or entitled 218.9% of its planned

we're here to reask that you reject the appeals. e.i.r. 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

if the board concludes the e.i.r. is not adequate as presented, yes, it would be sent back to planning with instructions as broad or limited as the would like. >> thank you very much. >> eighth other questions, colleagues? i want to thank everyone who's come out time and time again to weigh in on the projects an the neighbors, advocates, sponsors, planning department, back med for their surprised appearance two weeks ago. and i want to thank my staff that's helped me through the process and most importantly i want to hold up the community activists that have come out to talk about their concerns and what they like in the project and what they don't like in the project. i think the project can renext the uneasiness when it comes to the environmentalin -- injustices and people are still living through them. we're trying to do our best and the city will continue to do their best to do their careful due diligence to ensure projects that move forward are not compromising the community's health. with that said, what i'd like

we're here to reask that you reject the appeals. e.i.r. 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

president, at the beginning, i think that the -- this proposed e.i.r. meets all those criteria and has focused our attention on the issues and it presents a number of, i think, reasonable -- although debatable -- solutions for these issues. so i would be in favor of making those comments to the board of supervisors and the decision is theirs. >> thank you. commissioner? >> i wanted to add a couple more comments after we clarified that c brings up most of what we -- we're talking about at a.r.c. and i think f&g, too. you made some good comments about that, commissioner pearlman. i think what is even more significant for me as a cultural landscapist is the fact that this is an area of san francisco that is really unknown to the public. and, yes, i agree with the previous comments that the public will be inside it now for the first time ever. and to -- so i think we should do our darndest to bring up as much emphasis and strength on helping the citizens and the region and anyone that comes on to the site to know really what -- how the city evolved here. and

the e.i.r. is inadequate and is -- its conclusions are incorrect it should be recirculated due to the information that was presented and the e.i.r. did not consider the project impacts. during the hearing, members of the public expressed health related concerns over air-quality and hazardous materials. they also claimed the public notification process excluded nonare limited english-speaking communities. the board asked a few questions related to air quality and they asked the city attorney to clarify whether a two week continuance was adequate of a period to review new information that the planning department presented in response to the response to the comments to the air district. the board was satisfied with the department and the city responses and with the adequacy of the e.i.r. they voted 10-12 rejects the appeal with supervisor fewer disagreeing. the various audiences would create the india basin area. supervisor cohen introduced amendments to the affordable housing plan that included a j

and so that is -- is the base project description on which our e.i.r. is based, is these additional services are an inherent part of what we're building on the island, not just the residential homes, but these additional services. and then, the -- one of the mitigation measures that came out of the e.i.r. was to actually increase the frequency of service for muni service and ferry service above the levels initially proposed in the 2006 transportation plan. it was found that we actually had to have a higher level of service than was originally proposed. so we moved to the d.a. and the d.d.a. there are a number of obligations on ticd to develop new infrastructure, road ways, bike paths, to pay a local match towards the construction of the bid ramps that totalled almost $12 million. to purchase up to nine a.c. transit bus services, to purchase buses for the on-island shuttle program. to contribute 1.8 million towards the purchase of new muni buses. and over the course of development, to provide a subsidy of $30 million to the transit program during the cour

that was done both for the india basin i e.i.r. as well as soma. we provide a note indication that this document was available for review and jessica would like to add something in that regard to the chair. >> i'm not questioning whether you did, i think that perhaps there's another layer of outreach we can do. we can send outpost cards and e-mails to people. i get a lot of them too. i'm a busy person. i'm going to miss some of them. and so actually i completely understand. i don't know. actually i don't know how backmed construction works. i don't understand why you missed it. perhaps, you know, for us, when we really want the community to know about something and we want people to come out to our meetings. we call people and call community leaders. [ please stand by ] -- this is a huge educational opportunity for me as one of the three representatives from san francisco that sits on the board. i was not aware this was a practice. it makes sense that it would be, but it did not occur to me and not something that we talk about on the board. the sugg

this is the e.i.r. the e.i.r.cluded that the proposed project would generate emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and that the projects overall air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. additive minutes there would be violations. so you have gentrification and you have bogus sea level rises that would make donald trump the antiscience president happy using projections from six years ago. for that in many other reasons, rejects the statement of overriding considerations and uphold the law and let's not have more people like marie harrison, whose husband died of cancer and who is on those who can't survive without oxygen, whose grandkids have asthma, do you want more of that? your vote will tell the answer to that. thank you, very much. >> supervisor cohen: all right thank you, very much mr bradley angell. seeing that there are no other names on the roster for questions from my colleagues for the appellant, i will open for public comm

but most importantly, the city's own e.i.r. concluded that the development project will result in significant, unhealthy unlikely illegal levels of air pollution during both construction and operations that would be unavoidable and cannot be mitigated. we ask you, the members of the board of supervisors, are you going to vote to add significant and unhealthy levels of air pollution, likely above the quality standards to the already suffering community of bayview, hunter's point? the bay area quality management district and the state of california have both found that bayview, hunter's point residents are vulnerable and at risk to pollution. the last thing residents need is more pollution. if you vote for this project, you are voting to harm the health of bayview residents who are already suffering from too much pollution. please reject the project and protects people, not corporations. thank you, very much. >> i agree with everything she said. they have some good numbers. they have a whole lot of numbers , but how many certifica

the appropriate time to do this would be about a year ago when there were -- when the draft e.i.r. was in circulation. when we missed that, it doesn't really come up again until it comes to our attention for some other reason, perhaps, the final document is posted or someone in the community brings it to our attention. or perhaps if there's a permitted source at the project that we will be responsible for permitting. >> president cohen: so, it's your statement that someone brought this to your attention, someone other than -- some source outside of the ceqa net? >> correct. a member of the bay view community. >> if no one would have brought this to your attention, we would not be made aware of this mitigating factor. i say a significant one that has to do with the air quality. we would be just not discussing it. so, i would imagine back we would be quiet and not acknowledge the fact there could have been an additional mitigation offered on the discussion of this project, but that would require you to acknowledge your shortcomings on your process. >> if you would like me to do that,

they didn't even read the e.i.r. because they disputed what the e.i.r. says, which is that it could result in exceedances violations of air quality standards. they literally said they disagree, so i sent them the exact quote. this is pathetic, and i don't know what's going on here, but the planning department and the planning commission -- [inaudible] >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> yes, madam president, board of supervisors, i'm the general manager for archimedes banya. i am here today on behalf of mikhail brodsky because he had to travel for work. we've been in this since 2015. we believe we are the descendants of suit raback. i'm really worried about the construction that's about to happen in our back yard. there are a few reasons why, you know? first of all, the dust that's going to come up, it's going to be sucked in that building. it's just right where the construction starts. there's a few things that's really concerning me. what happens when you dig in or they dig in, and they find something in there? what if it's released in the

first of all, the e.i.r. report mentions the bath. it is to explain why they don't need to consider its. is a private business. that is why we don't need to think about your shape, your space, your privacy. this is how they included there peerk that is number 1. number 2, mr michael hammond lied. he received $3.5 million to move his house and an offer to have another house in a different place. it is published in san francisco journal. i don't have the reference at this moment. it is available to everybody. we participate in activities. he never invited us. we did it ourselves. my important concern. about five years ago, i was participating in the placing of a sculpture of a dolphin. it was paid by a russian engineer from silicon valley. he was a german immigrant. it was russian consular, i don't know why. i was really amazed because nobody knows, today, he was the mayor. people knew that he built the bathhouse. it would be a shame if you destroyed something which follows him. he was a good mayor here. he was giving to the people. he

even if everyone was heard the e.i.r. was pushed forward. even if we stated our case that building more for the central soma billion dollar project is a danger to the health and pedestrian safety of our seniors. health and safety has not been addressed. can you please address the impact of pollution of cars and traffic who are in the threat of eviction. the city has changed in significant ways with the additions of vehicle traffic and in the congestion of cars and uber and lyft. the impacts of the city's action on the health of its residents is a issue. the california environmental quality act. think about the health and pedestrian safety of youth, seniors and family first and foremost. this needs further research. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lordis. i'm here with so many ca somkan. soma is the most open spaced deficient neighborhood in san francisco along with the neighboring tenderloin. instead of providing publicly accessible space and they have many impact on the community for many reasons. they aren't open to th

we don't have the e.i.r. in place, we can't go out and get funding. it's a great idea to be mad at a problem, but the implement and solution we're proposing here is not a good one. we need to continue the process, analyze the problem, and make a fix. the fix is not delay, and i'm going to withhold money and i don't like it. vote no on this resolution. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, ron miguel. the last time i came before you was chair of the r.a.v. study, and i appreciate your acceptance of it. i'm here to speak strictly on the resolution of item 11. it's my understanding that what has to be done or should be done in the process would be for the comptroller's office to conduct an evaluation of the tjpa's management delivery, star perform a review of alternative oversight and governance models, and that those studies be put before you in order to go forward. chronicle was nice enough to quote me at the end of the article in today's paper, and basically what i said is, i would not like to see this p

moving forward, when we published the notice of availability and the draft e.i.r., we translated the n.o.a. into chinese, spanish, and tagalog. the sponsor paid to have it translated into chinese and spanish, and we posted all of those documents on the department's web item. >> supervisor kim: and what is the general protocol for all of these notices at the planning department? >> 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, b