that we'll be changing it from neighborhood commercial etc., and it goes on to say, for p., public, and o.s., open space, for the new north beach public library. is it customary to mention a specific use? or would it be better to have it say, change to p. and o.s. for public use. rather than mentioning the library specifically? >> john mallman from the city attorney's office, that's actually just a finding for the support in the change in legislation so the actual zoning map doesn't say we're doing that, that this is done for the north beach library and in fact, the finding is clear it would be for a new public library or other public use. so it's sort of an expansive

observation of what kinds of uses zoning can support on this site. >> following that argument, then, can we reword the resolution on -- if i can figure out what section we're in. vacation. it says for purpose of the north beach public library and joe dimaggio master plan, can we add other public use in there? >> john mallman from the city attorney's office. technically, the street vacation legislation is not before the planning commission. you play a role in that you are getting the general plan clearance to allow the vacation to go forward. i'm sure that we could work something out with the

legislative sponsors so sort of expand that finding in the street vacation legislation so it's similar to defining it in the zoning legislation. >> that would be -- i would be more comfortable, if you could keep north beach public library in there, but following the argument for the zoning change where you have wording that says or other public use would seem appropriate to me. i'm just throwing it out there as a suggestion. we don't have a motion yet. >> i don't understand the reason that your question -- commissioner sugaya: because it's a specifically targetted use and i'm uncomfortable, if this zoning is to last forever what if the library gets demolished in 50 years like the prevent one. >> commissioner fong.

>> wit, i'm not done. -- wait, i'm not done. on the interpretive display for mitigation monitoring, it says library, rec park shall approve a permanent interpret i have display at or near the site of the former north beach library. i suggest we change that wording and say, display should be in the new library. >> commissioner sugaya, do you have any more to add? commissioner sugaya: no, i'll offer those as amendments when it comes up. >> commissioner fong. commissioner fnchings ong: -- commissioner fong: i grew up in the area, still work in the area, i think that the pilot program that we endured was a

great way to prove that folks still could get around to fisherman's wharf, business did not significantly drop off, if at all. i think this would all be a great public space, meeting space, and enhance traffic into the water front. i am in support of the project and also realize that while it serves the people who live in the telegraph hill area, it also serves chinatown and if you look at the people using this facility, it's very diverse. >> commissioner borden. commissioner borden: most everything has been said. i support the project and i'm moved to approve the seqa finding as well as the general plan consistency findings and the request for zoning amendment. >> i'll second but i'd like to

separate the issues. >> ok, what would you like to separate out? >> i'd like to separate out the seqa findings. >> we have to do the seqa findings motion first. i move the seqa findings mokes and separate the others out for a second motion. >> second. >> did you want to speak to the seqa findings? >> i wanted a clarification, if i may, i'm not sure where it falls, that it's from the city attorney in response to collections about clarification of use in the long run, in the long, long run, 60 years, 100 years, beyond the life span until the new library becomes a historic building, i want to make sure that the view corridor which recognizes the former

mason street alignment and gives those people who are coming down mason street and do see the bay, that that will not be kind of diminished by what commissioner sugaya is asking. it needs to be more clearly expressed that in that previous easement, there's no encroachment on what the library does because that corridor still is the view corridor which all people who live up on mason street coming from russian hill, that's their first view of the bay but also further reinforces the historicness of columbus and all other streets which come in there. >> all i was saying is just add

open space in addition to the north beach library vacation resolution or whatever. >> i think to respond both to commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya, there are conditions in the general plan findings regarding how the transferred portion of mason street, you know, would have to be maintained in a way that the master plan envisions it and that this will be open to the public and that there would be no construction of permanent buildings right away excepting the branch library as the general plan determines it. >> thank you. >> on the motion for adoption of the seqa findings, commissioner antonini.

commissioner borden. commissioner fong. commissioner sugaya. that motion passed 6-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. >> i'll restate the motion. i move to approve the general plan findings and map amendments. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'd like to change the wording slightly in that interpretive display to have it located within the new library. >> i'm fine with that. >> we would prefer the flexibility of the interpret i display either inside or somewhere near the vicinity, so for that reason, that would be opposition to basically not be sort of constrained to one

location. >> it's my understanding that it's in the mitigation of the seqa of the -- that we just approved. it's the same wording in both but it was in the seqa findings we just approved. >> then it has to be in the library? >> let's leave it that the library acknowledged the possibility of having it in the new library will be considered along with somewhere at or near. thank you. >> commissioners, a motion for -- are we taking these together or separate? >> separate. >> the library has acknowledged that the interpretive display can be in or near the facility. on the motion, commissioner antonini.

commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner olague. thank you, commissioners, the motion passed unanimously. the library has been approved. >> is there a way we can continue other items to another time. >> commissioners if you would consider continuing item six, seven, and eight to next week's hearing? >> so moved. >> on the motion to continue matters to next week. >> aye. bracket vote taken] thank you.

we are now at general public comment on items not on the agenda. see nothing general public comment, this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

>> i have been a cable car grip for 21 years. i am a third generation. my grand farther and my dad worked over in green division for 27. i guess you could say it's blood. >> come on in. have a seat. hold on. i like it because i am standing up. i am outside without a roof over my head and i see all kinds of people.

>> you catch up to people you know from the past. you know. went to school with. people that you work with at other jobs. military or something. kind of weird. it's a small word, you be. like i said, what do people do when they come to san francisco? they ride a cable car. >> california line starts in the financial district. people are coming down knobbhill. the cable car picks people up. takes them to work. >> there still is no other device to conquer these hills better than a cable car. nobody wanted to live up here because you had to climb up here. with the invention of the cable

car, these hills became accessible. he watched horses be dragged to death. cable cars were invent in san francisco to solve the problem with it's unique, vertically challenged terrain. we are still using cars a century old >> the old cable car is the most unique thing, it's still going. it was a good design by then and is still now. if we don't do something now. it's going to be worse later. >> the cable cars are built the same as they were in the late 1800's. we use a modern machinery. we haven't changed a thing.

it's just how we get there. >> it's a time consuming job. we go for the quality rather than the production. we take pride in our work and it shows in the end product. >> the california line is mostly locals. the commuters in the morning, i see a lot of the same people. we don't have as tourists. we are coming up to street to

chinatown. since 1957, we are the only city in the world that runs cable cars. these cars right here are part of national parks system. in the early 1960's, they became the first roles monument. the way city spread changed with the invention of the cable car. >> people know in san francisco, first thing they think about is, let's go president olague: good evening. this is a special joint hearing between the san francisco planning commission and the treasure island authority board. before i take roll, if i can

just ask everyone to turn off your cell phones, any pagers, any computers, anything that may sound off during these proceedings, we would very much appreciate it. roll call for the planning commission. president christina olague. >> here. >> vice president ron miguel. >> here. >> antonini. >> here. >> borden? >> here. >> kathrin moore? >> here. >> and mr. sugaya. >> here. >> president claudine cheng. >> here. >> larry del carlo. >> present. >> john elberling. larry mazzolla. linda richardson and honorable jane kim is not seated tonight. thank you. commissioners, the first category on this joint agenda is public comment on agenda items where the public hearing

is closed. and that's an opportunity for the public to speak prior to the certification or the commission's consideration of the certification of the final environmental impact report. that is the only item on this calendar that has already been heard in a public hearing, and the public hearing has been closed. so for all of you who want to speak on the certification of the environmental document, there are a number of cards, and they're all mixed up. so if the joint chairs would allow, i would ask for those who want to speak to line up in the center aisle. president olague: that is the preferred way of dealing with it. thank you. and just so the public can be aware, this will be your only opportunity to address certification of the e.i.r. once the commission closes public comment in this category and they go into deliberation

on the certification, the public hearing will be closed and your opportunity to speak will be lost. madam president? president olague: we'll take public comment tt -- at this time. >> and how much time? president olague: two minutes. >> the president has decided that she will allow two minutes per speaker to address them on the certification of the e.i.r. president olague: the microphone doesn't seem to be -- >> i'll turn it on. try it now. >> hello. good evening. my name is judy west. i have been a member of the citizens advisory committee to the san francisco public utilities since 2004, attempting monthly briefings affecting the city's water and sewer system. i became alarmed about the treasure island project when i learned recently about the burden that's going to be placed on the p.u.c., which is

not highlighted in your environmental review and yet, could seriously impact areas much larger than the subject redevelopment area. and so i want -- before that you conclude that this project will not have a negative impact on the conditions of the mainland sewer system, i would like to see that you review the scope of the proposed citywide sewer master plan and the sewer and water rates that are going to be required to pay for this. unlike the redevelopment agency, the p.u.c. is an enterprise agency and must generate its own funds from water and sewer rates to fund their operations, as well as upgrades to the system, including $125 million sewer treatment plan that's proposed on treasure island. san francisco is decades behind in repair and replacement of the aging sewer system below the ground on the mainland due to voter-mandated freezes on water rates in the 1980's. the project sponsors are asking the city rate payers -- water

rate payers to build an entirely new sewer plan for 8,000 new homes, when we don't have enough money to upgrade the system we have in the bayview, which deals with 80% of the city's waste water for hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. it's the actual cost of the -- if the actual cost were paid for by the developers or by infrastructure bonds or whatever and then repaid by stimulating the local economy, these huge investments by the p.u.c. might make sense. but there's already conflicts about the amount of affordable housing required or other public benefits, such that there's no guarantee that city, the developers or the p.u.c., which is what i'm concerned about, is going to be repaid for this investment. [chime] president olague: i just wanted to clarify that this is the only opportunity to speak to the e.i.r. you will have an opportunity to speak to the project at another time in the hearing. >> my name is dick millett.

i'm a former president of the boosters neighborhood association. i'm speaking for myself. i just noticed in the little handout here, the project description doesn't address parking. it does talk about 8,000 homes, 500 hotel rooms, 100,000 square feet of office space. i don't believe the ridge can handle it. i don't think the ferries can handle it that don't exist. i question are we going to charge a toll to help out the bridge, which keeps going up and up, or half a toll, because they'll be using half of the bridge? i live in a neighborhood where we're studying congested parking and it's going to cost me $3 or $6 to move around town. it cuts my ride in happen. are we going to do this with

them? i think the plan is not well thought out completely, and i want to see that we have guaranteed transportation. we don't have guaranteed transportation in san francisco . all of these projects that we're doing, where we're increasing the density, we don't guarantee that we're going to have the transportation. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. >> good evening. my name is paul and i'm a candidate for mayor of san francisco in november of 2011 and i speak on behalf of the citizens of the state of california and object to the whole proceedings where the e.i.r. is being accepted or certified for acceptance, when the property and the title of the treasure island belongs to the people of the state of california, not the u.s. navy. it was not the navy's to sell for $110 million and it's not

private developers to develop. this is privatization of the public commons and i object to it. the value of one piece of property at 110 embark darrow is $6 million without any development. that's lands value alone. if you extrapolate that to treasure island, the property is worth $20 billion, that's b as in billion, 100,000 million. $6,000 million dollars. we sold this or allegedly tried to sell it to lenar for $110 million. this is a rip-off. the ownership issue has not been settled. title has not cleared. the privatization of our commons is something that is extremely serious, especially when it's for private gain. this is something that absolutely has to stop. the land belongs to the people of california and i object to the consideration of the e.i.r.

at this time on behalf of the people of california. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners and title board members. my name is gail gilman, the executive director of the community housing president buell: and a provider of homeless housing on treasure island for the last 10 years. . . i'm here tonight to urge you to approve the e.i.r. and also to understand that my comments extend to the rest of the hearing on matters of approving the plan. this is a great opportunity for the city and county of san francisco to create a green transit-first community that will have over 400 units of housing for formerly homeless families and to give those families an opportunity to integrate into a safe, state-of-the-art community and break their cycle of homelessness and poverty. as we all know, many of our supported housing sites in san francisco are in disenfranchised and poor

neighborhoods. this will be the first time that an emerging community will embrace individuals living in poverty and homelessness. this is an exciting opportunities as a stea and i urge you to support it. groups like community partnership have been working for over a decade in this partnership, in partnership with lennar and the treasure island developers. while i know there is controversy and there's always planning and these things move at a rate in san francisco that some might think is slow, i fully endorse this plan and feel that this is the time, particularly with what's happening at the state level, that we move as a community to secure this housing for homeless individuals and the hundreds of units of affordable housing that will be there as well. i urge you to vote yes this evening. thank you. >> hello, my name is louise williams. i'm a local 22 carpenter and i want to approve this -- i want

to endorse this project. it would create a lot of jobs, lots and lots of jobs. i am welfare to work. i've been working at least 12 years. and if it can work for me, it can work for a lot of people. and right now in our communities throughout san francisco, we are in dire need of employment all over. please, please push for this project to happen. thank you. >> good evening, president olague and commissioners from treasure island and planning commission, adrian siebe from carpenter's local 22, field representative. i have here tonight with me brothers and sisters from carpenters local 22. we have more downstairs. these are working carpenters. these are out-of-work carpenters, brothers and sisters. we're all together in this. this is an opportunity that we need to take advantage of.

opportunities come and go. the ones you don't take, you never know. this is an opportunity we have to put carpenters to work and local 22 would ask that you approve this e.i.r. and let us go to work. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sue vaughn and i'm here speaking on behalf of the sierra club. the sierra club urges the san francisco planning commission to recirculate the treasure island -- the e.i.r. for the following reasons -- the project has changed substantially since it was initially approved by the treasure island development authority and the san francisco board of supervisors in 2006 and then updated in 2010, and then changed also earlier this

year. to the sierra club finds that the amount of allowable parking is far too high. residential parking should be no more than one space for every two units. and in fact, caltrans wrote a letter to the planning department yesterday noting that the san francisco-oakland bay bridge is already at capacity and no funds have been identified to undertake the multi-use project that would say lao people coming and going from the -- allow people coming and going to and from the island. the transit agency to the planning department dated august 20, 2010, notes that the project will create significant and unavoidable queuing at the approach to the bay bridge in san francisco. and the sierra club also poses a governance structure which gives the treasure island development authority and/or the developers complete civil authority over a piece of san francisco land. for example, moneyha