at least 15 years of history into the next 1:46 seconds. let me fast forward to 2003 when the department of the navy issued an environmental impact statement for 2840 dwelling units for 6895 people on treasure island in the year 2003. the record of decision on that e.i.s. was that the impacts to transportation biling, at thetics, air quality and noise would be --s a thetics, air quality and noise. we need to build a more dense development and indeed as a member of the board of supervisors, as the president of that body in the year 2006, that body voted unanimously to balance a number of public interests with 6,000 units. in 2010, the mayor's office

average and tihdi decided to raise that to 8,000 units. the impacts to traffic are phenomenal to the east bay. you'll see 42 unavoidable significant, unmitigateable impacts in the e.i.r. that is before you and that was before the world changed again and governor brown brought the whole concept of redevelopment financing into question and the public benefits to affordable house wrg reduced to 25% but that is a 17% reduction. the impacts have been increasing. and the public benefits have been eroding and the e.i.r. you have gotting and i have seen as of april 12, 41 pageses and it was brought to my attention yesterday, 96 pages in additional changes. i do not want to ask how many of you commissioners have read

those documents but let me say it was not possible for me to read them. it is unlikely that you have read them. i cannot believe that you know what you're voting on. >> thank you. >> madam president. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comments? >> hello, commissioners. my name is vince courtney. 261 in san francisco. we have 3,000 men and women who need work. i'm here today to speak favor of this project. we understand that sometimes things change a little bit but the men and women that rely on us and rely on you to make the decisions that need to be made wanted me to come here and tell they need these job opportunities. they need to pay their rent. they need to pay their mortgage. they need to pay for their cars and they need you guys to make

difficult decisions and make sure that the treasure island project happens. please do the right thing. don't politicize this issue and move this project forward for san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on the e.i.r.? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? madam president. before we go to the commission, we need to call the item into the record. so if you would just indulge me for a moment. >> please. commissioners you are calling item number one and two. you are now at consideration of finding some final action. the public hearing for this category is closed. you're considering item one case

2007 point 09 e. you're considering certification of the environmental impact report. >> commissioner antonini? getting ahead of >> thank you. good evening, president olague and cheng and members of the commission and board. i'm rick cooper from the environmental planning section of the planning department and also with me are victoria wise who provides analysis for the e.i.r. and andrea of the planning staff. the item before you is certificate figureation of the final rory for the development project. the proposed project would

include development on treasure island and nearby buena island of up to 1,000 residential units. commercial and retail space. up to 100,000 square feet of new office space. up to 311,000 square feet of commercial and retail space and 500 hotel rooms. new and or upgraded public and community facilities, a new combined police and fire station on treasure island. new and/or upgraded public utilities. cultural uses such as a museum. new and upgraded streets. bicycle transit and pedestrian facilities. waterside facilities. land site services for an

expanded marina. a transit hub. the project would also include several infrastructure improvements including geotechnical stabilization to improve seismic safety. the proposed project woled include specifications, programs to encourage transit use, design standards for panels on most roofs, recycle water use and most features promoting sustainability. the copy of the draft is before you. the draft rory was published on july 12, -- e.i.r. was published on july 12, 2010. public hearing closed in 2010. it was distributed on march 10,

2011. today we also provide you with it that has earlier testimony available on the rack in the back that has provisions to correct minor errors on the e.i.r. copies of the memo are also available. you have also received a memorandum data which describes certain changes which occurred following publication of the comments and responses including a change in the government's structure and documents under which it would be implemented. designed for development that have occurred since the march 5 2010 draft was circulated. this was sent to all interested parties and was made available on the planning commission websites.

it is being replaced with a new proposed treasure island buena island area plan to be added to the san francisco general plan, which would no longer simply reference the plan but instead present policies to provide the foundation for land use and development and the special use district to be added to the planning code along with zoning amendments. the references designed for development and uses its standards and guidelines as a basis. the main financing mechanism also has been revised under redevelopment plans to one or more infrastructure district mechanisms. as a direct result it would change from 2400 units discussed

in the e.i.r. to. 2,000 units. it is envisioned to an area plan from a redevelopment plan. some are in response to public comments on march 5 public review draft. the maximum height limits and maximum parking ratios for commercial uses have also been reduced. as described in the memo, none of these present any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft e.i.r. consequently they do not trigger the need purr suents to ceqa. also you have been presenteded with a copy of the letter. none of these letters raise new environmental issues that have not already been addressed through drafert e.i.r. at this time i would like to

address some issues that have been raised recently and in today's hearing. one issue was raised recently by a fire marshal regarding the proposed street layout, specifically with regard to public safety and emergency response. in march 2009, a comprehensive street network and grid design drawing was presented to the transportation advisory staff committee or tasc for the fire department, the police department, city planning and m.t.a. and traffic engineering. the members were satisfied that the project adequately addressed their concerns. last week the mayor's office of economic and workforce development staff met with the fire chief and her staff including fire marshal barbara.

based on that meeting, the fire chief stated that she is satisfied that the angles of the streets meet all the requirements of the fire department for access and the proposed street grid does not violate any requirements. as the plan moves into the next phase of design, all layouts and intersection configurations will be subject to review and approval by the fire department and other applicable city agencies including m.t.a. and the mayor's office of disability. in order to be approved it will have to be found to be conformant to the fire code and all applicable regulations including site distance. they have confirmed in a memo

dated april 19, 2011, that the proposal is not in conflict with the better streets plan. the fire department's deputy chief of operations, patrick gardner is here this evening to answer any questions you may have on this issue. also during public comment portion over the meeting, we heard speakers who raised other issues concerning the project. many of the comments did not address environmental issues but rather were expressions of the opposition to the project. public opinion regarding the merits of the project is not a topic of concern for the certification of the e.i.r. although you may wish to take such comments into account during your consideration of the project entitlement. some of the comments raised did address some environmental issues. i would like to reference to cal transletter we referred to

earlier. dated april 20, yesterday. and this letter generally expresses support for e.i.r. and basically looks forward to further consultation with the city. thank you. >> further consultation with the city in those regards. there were a couple of minor issues. one regarding requesting signage on the island to indicate to motorists that they may need to wait for a while to get on to the bridge. other than that, this letter is not in my view, does not express any new issues that we have not already dealt with in the e.i.r. regarding the effects of tsunamis, both the commission and the board have received briefings in previous hearings on this issue and the e.i.r.

analysis properly concluded that the level of flood protection is adequate to protect against all flood hazards including tsunami. regarding hazardous materials on the island, there was an issue raised regarding potentially new sites where radiation may occur. there is, as described in the e.i.r., there is an extensive regulatory framework in place that would provide for remediation of sites if new materials are discovered. we have also provided mitigation measures in the e.i.r. that bolster that program so that any materials that are found would be dealt with propetsly. -- appropriately. if you'll refer to the mitigation measure in the document, there is an extensive

measure that requires consultation with a wildlife biologist as to when buildings are proposed and also allows for changes in the way that bird strikes with dealt with over time as the technology and understanding of bird strikes evolves and we believe this measure is very robust and would reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant. the evaluation of issues in the e.i.r., the implementation of the project would result in unavoidable environmental immacts that could not be mitigated to a significant level in transportation, noise, air quality, wind and biological resources. in conclusion, we suggest it is

accurate and adequate and the procedure for it, the final e.i.r. complies with the ceqa, the ceqa findings. this concludes my presentation. at this time, i would like to introduce michael, presenting our co-lead agency, the treasure island development authority, following michael's presentation, our team can respond to any questions that the commission or board members may have. thank you. >> the treasure island development authority board of directors. item three. public hearing closed. 3 a resolution certifying the report, the treasure island, buena island project. good evening presidents olague and cheng, commissioners in and

directors. as rick mentioned, the item before you is a resolution to certify the final environmental impact report for the treasure island, buena island development project by adopting this resolution, you will be certifying that the final e.i.r. is accurate and adequate and that the procedures by which it was prepared are consistent with the ceqa guidelines and the city's code. i defer my remarks to rick cooper to and staff is here to answer any questions that you may have or address any of the issues that were raised earlier during public comment. >> thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree that it is quat and consistent. i would like to answer -- is adequate and consistent. i think mr. cooper spoke to a

lot of those but comments were made to the effect that you know, a lot of this is landfill as is most of downtown san francisco, which did quite well in the earthquake of 1989. i think it is not the landfill but how the landfill is treated and i'm quite impressed by the measures that are being proposed to compact about 125 or 130 acres of the land that needs compaction to strengthen them to build areas around three miles on the outside and have it be two feet above the level of downtown san francisco. for those concerned about the future residents, they will be safer with the measures that are being taken than they are now today. i think it has been 10 years in the process and i think it is time to move ahead on this. on a couple of other issues, i

think mr. cooper spoke about the traffic impacts and the mitigations and where they are not mitigateable, i think the benefits that are gained outweigh the circumstances that will occur but i think we can direct people in methods other than driving in their commutes to san francisco and elsewhere that might tend to make these impacts less. also, i think there was some concern about changes that occurred to the environmental impact report that came fairly recently. there were only really two significant ones. one was reducing the maximum height of the taller buildings, which of course is a lesser impact than one would assume than the taller buildings and also lessening the amount of hotel spaces from .8 spaces per room to .4 spaces per room and to lessen the number of spaces needed for retail from one for

every 25 spaces for every 1,000 square feet to 15 spaces for every 1,000 feet of retail. i quickly saw what the changes were and in my mind those would not require any further analysis because they are lesser and finally, the issue was brought up about the affordable housing, which is not necessarily a ceqa or e.i.r. issue but it was brought up during this discussion. i will point out that at 25% affordable, that's 10% more than the rest of san francisco, which is required to have 15% inclusionary -- i just took a visit to denver. i saw stapleton, which used to be an airport. it has been filled up with housing.

the amountf affordable housing in stapleston 10%. that is the situation for denver. so certainly, i think we're doing a very good job in doing the best we can with what we have available and i am supportive and feel that the document does a very good job of answering environmental concerns. >> commission 234er sugaya? >> commissioner sugaya:. thank you, staff. i guess i am leaning toward circulation. we are switching from a redevelopment model toward what is called construction financing districts. my belief is that we have no idea at this point how these districts are going to function,

how much money they are going to generate, and although the eir says that adopting the redevelopment plan does not affect environmental impact of the proposed project, but rather affects funding mechanisms to be used to implement the proposed project -- it is kind of a circular argument. the way you find it results in the kinds of physical things that the eir is supposed to address. it is not only the loss of housing. it could lead to other things which have not been studied. i do not know whether it is the appropriate way to address something like the issue of keeping the number of affordable housing units and paying for that, and taking the money from somewhere else like open space. my belief is that if you take it from open space, you have to recirculate the eir because

there comes a fundamental problem with public benefit. that is my belief, anyway. that is on a macro scale. i think that it would affect the way that physical things are enhanced, either built or not build, whether various programs can be implemented or not. i think those kinds of things have not been properly addressed in the change brought about by the funding mechanism since the draft eir and since the production of the cnr document. a house staff has mentioned, we have not received at least -- as stuff has mentioned, we have received at least to reduce. one i do not believe was minor. it ran to a number of pages. these are all characterized as

technical or typographical. but we have been getting these at least two or three times. i think that alone speaks to perhaps stepping back a bit and taking another look at the eir. more specifically, on some more targeted issues, in terms of historic resources, the eri makes-- eir makes a determination that some of the impact would be less than significant. i think the problem that i have is that there is not enough detail in the proposed plan to really evaluate what the impacts are. i think then they try to pass it off to subsequent reviews. but my question in my mind, the question i have in my mind, is

how many times can you use the same argument, where you say we think there is an impact but there is not enough information and later we will figure it out if we get the design, and then have a review process? that is the other issue that i have. i do not believe the review process that is being proposed, with respect to historic resources, works for me. it eliminates any expertise that reside in the city and passes it all off and says that are going to hire an independent private consultant to do that analysis. that does not work for me. that kind of issue i think should have been looked at a little more closely. then, just one may be even smaller thing. i still have an issue with building 111.

it is being passed off as an ancillary kind of building that has no real significance, or has been recognized as significant but can be demolished because it is treated as an addition to a larger building. i think if the eir was -- they try to tell me this was a result of dueling experts, because some architectural historians have said this building is historic and if you demolish it it is unavoidable and significant impact. you bring in another expert and they say it is historic but you can demolish it because it is an ancillary structure to a bigger building which still remains and the impact does not rise to the level of being significant. if there are already significant

unavoidable impact in the eir, it would be more honest to treat the demolition of the building as such and leave it that way. president olague: thank you. commissioner moore: i wanted to think the public for the various expressions of support for the project, but i remind the public that we are tasked to consider whether or not to certify this informational document as adequate for informed public agency decision makers such as ourselves. has it identified to the full extent possible ways to minimize significant effects and described reasonable alternatives to the project? the first thing i tried to do was understand whether or not what we looked at in 2006 and

are looking at in 2011 our plans which have significant similarities. in 2006, we were dealing with 2800 dwelling units. that was under the navy base reuse plan. 2500 of those units were to be on treasure island. the remainder were to be on ybi. this proposes 800 residential units, an increase. the 2006 plan projects a 8267 spaces, of which 7627 are considered to be off-street spaces, together with 640 cars in on-street parking.

the 2011 plan increases parking by 34%, to a total of 11,155 spaces, with an increase in parking to 107. please bear with me. i am trying to determine whether or not you are seeing a change. the 2006 change and provides a detailed account of parking. that is a particular diagram shown in the transportation plan 2006, together with a summary of overall proposed parking. the 2011 plan has failed to give us any comparable detailed information on that subject, at least not in any map. the 2006 plan provides a detailed application mapping of on street and off street parking. the 2006 transportation plan shows numbers of cars in each location. this was brought up by the