agency that said they re going to help the people in the project areas. it was a group called urban strategy that was supposed to make sure that the residents in public housing would receive those jobs. it never happened. we was going back and forth to the redevelopment agency every time they meet saying urban strategy is not doing what they re supposed to do. nothing has been done. now, what we have here, one of the young ladies that is a part of this group, she had to leave. she is a member of my church. what i have asked instead of espinoza going before the board of supervisors, city planning, p.u.c., come yourself. let them see you. because evidently they may think i am just talking. no one is dealing with a local hiring. they re finding loopholes sweetheart to get through them. they re hiring truckers for three months and laying them off and bringing other truckers from other areas in to our community. work is not being done like it should be and, number one, and i state
known for years, information that bob fisher, city fields and the turf industry have long been trying to sprezz. san francisco synthetic field runoff water contained dangerous levels of heavy metals and other toxics which were in excess of state and federal guidelines. clare s experiment has brought her accolades including a 2011 international eco hero award, national science foundation award and even a speaking engagement at a convention, one of the largest gatherings of scientists around the world. her efforts only scraped the surface of the many risks associated with the plastic fields. we can t expect the children of san francisco to fend for themselves when it comes to protecting their long term health and future. clare s efforts beg the question, why aren t the adults truly pro technicaling them? we put that critical question to you. to facility tate searches, i insert the keywords children s health hazzard, mission playground, l.e.d. poisoning, mercury poisoning, fishe
stuck on stupid and they don t want us to work in our own community. so since we can t work in our community, be it known ain t nobody going to work. i m letting you know in advance that we re going to have a problem at hunter point. whatever it leads to, that s just where it s got to lead to, ok? president chiu: thank you. thank you very much. if i could just ask one member of the public to speak at a timeout of respect to the members of the public here. thank you very much, sir. is he running the show? president chiu: excuse her excuse me, excuse me sir. they re not going to speak. president chiu: excuse me. rei think at this time we re going to take a five-minute recess. thank you very much. we re going to have one speaker at a time. if we have another interruption, we will call for another recess until we have order. this is how we operate in this board chamber. let s hear from the next speaker, thank you. if could you play what s on the computer. i have been do
adequacy, the efficiency, and the planning department s determination that the project was exempt from environmental review. we will then take public comment from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the public. each speaker will have up to two minutes to speak. we will then hear from the planning department, of which will have several minutes to describe their objective. then we will have a party of interest who will have up to 10 minutes. we will then hear from members of the public. each speaker will have up to two minutes. finally, there will be two minutes for a bottle. colleagues, are there any questions? supervisor wiener, do you have any opening comments? supervisor wiener: nothing at this time. supervisor chiu: what do we hear from the representative to the appellate? mr. williams. thank you. i am stephen williams representing the neighbors association which includes the area of 17th and markets. the environmental exemption was given to this project because t
processes. not informing us is the game playing. it is an attempt to create a statute in this chamber. in this particular case, there was a mistake made. this is the subject site. the project started out as a minor alteration of 136 ord street, fall 2008. the project was reviewed. that is exhibit two and three. on december 31, 2008, the department found that the cottage was not an historical source, and therefore the alteration of requested could go forward. for reasons of his own, the developer abandoned the project to alter 136 ord street, and in july 2009 instead presented an entirely different project, a project to build a three-story building right in the middle of the green space that you see. this is the approximate location of the new project. this is where the error occurred. instead of revisiting early environmental determination, the department just carried the previous determination forward as though it were the same project. it got lost in the shuffle. however yo