38 are considered significant and unavoidable. and the mitigation measure suggested the one mitigation measure that was suggested for -and avoidable impact for 38 of them happens to be the extend -- to extend transit service, ntr-2. and the report also stated that funding for extended time of service are not identified and secured and therefore its implementation must be considered at this time. i think we all understand that given this bunt -- budget of the city and budget of muni. but i wish that because of the totality of the impact and so many of them, i just wish that planning staff would consider ending more information as far as alternatives as to how we can

or possibilities of how we can -- transit service can be extended. would it be a function of the soon to be newly created treasure island transportation management agency which is supposed to be appointed by the board of supervisors? will it be one of the responsibility of the transportation management agency to oversee and guide us in the future in developing policies, mitigation measures, and how we can afford it. maybe we can also consider giving some options so that we as well as member of the public can look into -- can understand what are the possibilities because the impacts are quite immense. i really like to see some alternatives being suggested or options into how these mitigation measures can be funded. the second area i would like to bring up is public -- in the public service session. i have always been keen about asking about emergency services

because of the unique location of the island and study across state and all of us know bay bridge is the only emergency access to and from san francisco . i fear that that could be a little more adequate information in terms of how we mitigate the measures because certainly the increase in population over tenfold from what it is today between now and the build out of the project will increase demand in public services. i'm specifically referring to the analysis for fire department, we are looking at natural disasters, emergency medical services. the e.i.r. talk about the new fire station. i think that's something that needs to be done but i would like to have more adequate information in terms of mitigation measures because i

think purely because of the population increase the impact is not insignificant or less significant. as member of the public have mentioned there are--- in the earthquake zone. there are many natural disasters that can happen as the population increase, and i would like to see mitigation measures being suggested in terms of how we deal with these situations. >> thank you. board member elberling. >> thank you. first i do agree that an extension of the comment period would make sense. this clearly is a very complex, technical document and if the organizations that are most able to provide expert comment on it feel they need an additional two weeks to do that, i really think we would all benefit from that

input. on the document, reading reminds me of when back in the late 1980's an organization i was a member of that sued the city on the downtown plan settled with them and one of the settlement provisions was that e.i.r.'s should be easy to understand for lay people. as i was reading this document, i got the distinct impression that that vision has been lost. it's very much a document written by consultants and experts and engineers for other consultants and experts and engineers. our hope had been the summary would really embody the essence of the story about the project. and i don't find that adds to the story here. this project, of course, is creating a whole new neighborhood, actually the size of a small city.

and a uniquely, physically isolated location in the bay, in the city of san francisco. that makes it very different than the other similarly scaled projects of mission bay and hunters point shipyard where there are neighborhoods right next to them, literally, physically to support them. and in my mind that's a critical thing that really is crucial when considering the environmental consequences of what we are doing. i have looked to find out details of the population of this future new small city we are building in the bay. and i could find a number of 18,000-some in the public services section but i couldn't find anything else about who they might be in that location. looking around you could find the school-aged population, but i couldn't find a preschool population, i couldn't find a

senior pope pew lation, i didn't see estimates -- population, i didn't see estimates for lower income households or housing. i couldn't get a handle on who is going to live there. i also could not find, although it problem-l exists, where they would work. i was really curious how many would be working in east bay, for example. one of the major things about mission bay we learned is many mission bay residents work in the south bay. that was not in the e.i.r., believe me, when it was done 15 years ago. and i'm curious to what extent many of the t.i. residents may in fact be working in east bay. was this very consequential for the e.i.r.? there's probably an estimate, i couldn't find it. but out of that i think there is a crucial missing overarching mitigation for the whole project that really needs to be stated as mitigation and it's an

important one to guide its long-term development over the next 20 to 30 years which is that the project should minimize the necessaryity for residents to travel off island, for their everyday needs and lives. we have to, in other words, include on the island as much of the facilities and services as feasible that residents routinely need. because otherwise they will have to go to -- on to the bridge or ferry or something to come to the mainland. i'm using an example noted in the document but not quantified is childcare. all working parents are going to have to have arrangements for childcare. if it's not on the island, they are going to have to go off the island to do that. and it will almost certainly drive a car to do that. that's an obvious example of

something that we have to be sure that there is the most adequate childcare you have ever seen in a master plan san francisco neighborhood. and that concept is not in this document, although clearly it has an environmental impact. in looking at other such everyday necessaryities, it's really hard to project now looking years down the road how those 18,000 people, what they will need. obviously projects adapt. we can't figure it all out in advance now. and the program that's specified here in terms of square footage of this and that may be adequate or may not. but there's always the opportunity for mid course corrections. these massive projects almost always have a major amendments and new work done 10 to 15 years down the road. i'm sure whoever is in charge of the project at that time can

take this into account if we have laid that initial groundwork that tells them to be sure to minimize the needs of residents to travel off the island. one particular detail i couldn't find in the document at all and i can't find in the program is public assembly. there are all kinds of reasons that residents need to assemble in groups in order to do things. there is nothing in our program, and i ask, we don't have any facilities specifically in our development program today. i think that's a glaring omission. it's needed. i wanted, though, to focus on one everyday thing that in particular stands out in my mind. which is communities of faith need places to gather on fridays, saturdays, or sundays, and various holy days respectively throughout the year

to share their faith. and when i asked where can there be -- could there be a church on treasure island? where would congregations of any description gather? there is no provision for that. it hasn't been included. i asked if some organization could buy a piece of land and build a church and basically the answer was no. i really -- i'm a secular person, but i understand clearly that communities of faith are really vital parts of building real cities and real neighborhoods. to exclude that almost -- but to exclude it de facto is there's something i really think is very inappropriate. in an environmental sense, of course, if we do not accommodate them on the island, they will be driving on friday, saturdays, and sundays to various places

elsewhere. but even beyond that, we will lose the resource of their good energies to building our neighborhood and i don't think it's right. there is, of course, a church on the island now. it's a christian church, but it's a church. when i looked at the historic section, i couldn't find a church in the e.i.r. i couldn't find a single mention of the treasure island church. i tried to understand this. the historic methodology was the document relies on the navy's evaluation of historic resources for everything before 1947. and just kind of includes that as if it's a done deal. but as it notes, the navy's methodology is not the same as the city's. that the city practices under our planning requirements and so on. and -- but it only applies those new standards to buildings built

after 1947. so the treasure island church because it existed before 1947 just doesn't get considered. it's like it doesn't exist. the navy didn't identify this as a historic resource. in looking at all those issues, and public assembly, and so on i was really struck with the fact that that church obviously played an important role in the history of the island all through ther-ea of world war ii, korean war, vietnam war. it was a very central focus of community for the military personnel who are certainly a part of the history of treasure island and san francisco. and i really find its omission inexplicable in my mind. i just want it noted. the navy assessment cannot be relied on as satisfactory for our local approval process. we have our own standards. and they should be applied to

the pre--1947 buildings as well as the post-1947 buildings. perhaps that can help solve at least part of the problem that i referred to earlier. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> i guess the main issue i look at treasure island frankly is the transportation issue. taking a step back i think many people need to understand this is an environmental document. and the role of the ceqa is looking at alternatives and impacts and mitigation. if you just look at the transportation area, which i think is the number one issue with treasure island, there's 141 pages of section 4-e of the review, this section and compare this with other documents we have produced as a city, this is the most comprehensive look

getting on and off the island, whether it's through water taxies or hydrofoil or mass transit or the future. i think if we take a step back and look at this document that has been very well prepared when it comes to the transportation, which surprised me, in addition to that we have a unique opportunity where it is an island. if you look at hong kong island and venice, both of them are islands, how do you get on and off? venice is one area where you look at the future of the environment, where you work -- look in venice during parts of the year high tide and low tide it floods st. mark's square in those areas. but i think if you also look at the document here, someone brought the issue about global warming and the issues of global warming and tides and next 100 years or so how many feet it will go up, or you look at 100-year flood area, i think the

document address that is adequately. the seismic issue, if you look at the density of the north part of treasure island, has the least development on north knot side regarding density, i thinkle' have some soccer or field there. i think we need to focus here, people say, well, this is a very tough document. well, part of the issue is our planning code is the most comprehensive planning code in the world at this time because people have voted it in and the board and certain sections. you can't make it any simpler than it is now because the way the rules and regulations are set up. if you look at the adequacy, i want to turn specifically with the comments about is this considered adequate. does it address all the alternatives? i didn't hear any public comment at this time that leads me to believe we haven't addressed or the alternatives or adequacy of this. for disclosure i serve on the restoration advisory board back in 1986 to about 1989.

dianne feinstein appointed me to that r.a.b. then serve under the navy, i guess, in the city along with hunters point, also the presidio. it is the environmental issues here with hazardous waste, i am not worried about. the underground tanks have been removed. we have the oversight of the water resources control board and state toxic along bcdc also controls the tide, the 100 feet where it comes in and out. i think the question for us to look at here, if you want to add another two weeks to cover public comment, what is dimp with this e.i.r. versus other e.i.r.'s we have done in the city? i didn't hear any public testimony that has led me to believe that we need to -- any additional information. whether board member ebber ling -- e -- elberling is right or not with the church, i don't remember any time that we have

to address the-sably issues in any other e.i.r.'s. i don't disagree maybe we should look at faith-based facilities being there, but that's -- the treasure island plan itself, they can negotiate some sort of rental there, that's a separate document. regarding the e.i.r. with the transportation and the environment and some of the alternatives, again i'm going back to the role of the e.i.r., have we looked at the alternatives? if we looked -- i think we have adequately looked at the alternatives. we know we have -- there's mitigation issues. but going back again, the public should understand, this is a document to look. how do we look at the alternatives? >> a couple of things. >> i forgot you were sharing a

mike here. >> i also got the shortest seat. anyway. i'm a little taller than i really am here. in any case, i'd like to support the two-week extension. i would like to make a motion to do that. i can't remember how we do this -- >> i was about to say that one of the few prerogatives of the chair. i have discussed it with board chair owen and we have two weeks additional until, if my check of the calendar is correct, september 8. >> thank you. i have additional comments i'll submit in writing and not take up more time. i thank mr. elberling with his observation with respect to the navy's evaluation. and since my area of expertise happens to be in that direction, some of my comments will be focused on that as well as perhaps transportation and other land use.

thank you. >> very good. thank you. the other comments i was going to make although i will probably submit it in writing as well, one of the reasons that i felt and agreed with a number of the speakers, including commissioners and board members regarding a two-week extension, is the fact that although this has different situations than what we just went into with hunters point, it has very serious implications to the city and certainly an additional two weeks or 60 days is not out of line. here rather than being a superfund site, which was one of the major situations at hunters point, we had a totally different area not connected to the land other than by very tenuous transportation roads.

what i'm concerned about is the density of the project as it's proposed. density transportation services are intimately linked. i'm not positive in my mind that that linkage has been properly explored or considered. all of the other environmental acts as far as cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions, everything else involved with that area of the environment, i know has been looked at but i think they will become at least in my mind more serious when we get to this 15, 20 or longer buildout of the project itself.

and i'm not totally convinced that the density as currently proposed is -- should be as high as it is. because of the transportation which is very, very difficult. i have a long history with the island. what is now called building two in the 1950's called hangar two. that's where i used to go constantly for navy reserve meetings. back when the navy had it. many of the items that were mentioned today will be handled in the development agreement itself. they do not necessarily belong in the e.i.r. and that development agreement should be very, very carefully studied to cover those items,

particular to what it would be like on the island. but i do believe that the density and transportation issues need further examination in my mind they have not been linked successfully. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i'm ok with the two-week extension that's being proposed is the motion on the floor. and i want to thank mr. elberling for bringing up the concerns about jobs on the island, particularly those that deal with neighborhood serving. i think it is well analyzed in the e.i.r. there are i believe a total of around 45 ,000 square feet between the commercial, retail square footage on there and maybe a little bit more when we consider the hotels and perhaps even some of the recreational uses. i think it is important that the residents be able to find those

uses that they use on a daily basis to be present on the island. i think that's good. and while this isn't the subject for discussion today, it's a future subject for other bodies at being part of regional transportation agencies. but we know there will be a time when they look for redundancy to their present tube. if there is a possibility of that linking up, it makes sense to me. as an additional alternative to allow people to travel into san francisco. particularly easily and quickly even though the analysis of the ferry terminal and those things is quite well analyzed to address the transportation needs. board member a ma had a. >> i -- samaha.

>> i do want to thank our staff for a document i think is very thorough. i am a not surprised a project of this magnitude has had such little controversy. i'm actually quite surprised that we have not had more controversial comments to this document. but i do support a two-week extension. i think it is a reasonable request for a project of this magnitude. i do want to echo commissioner elberling's comments about the east bay link to the east bay and those jobs. i think that had not been adequately addressed in this document. and then the comment that we heard today which are new to me about the athletic fields and the tideland trust interpretation, i do want that to be looked at my staff. hopefully when we revisit this

in september we can look at that further. thank you. >> thank you. just a correction if i may. i was looking incorrectly at my calendar. two weeks extension would bring it to september 9. that is a jewish holiday. i don't think we should include that. so arbitrarily i'm going to make it september 10. so everyone understands you have until september 10 to submit your written comments. the close of business on september 10 to be official about it. thank you. anything else from the commissioners or board? anything further? all right. with that this public hearing to take comments on treasure island is closed. i thank everyone and ask them to

please submit as in the normal manner their comments. thank you.