rudimentarily address this without a guiding principles of how to deal with treasure island should we be stuck with before heights in a number of critical locations. i'd like to suggest the product description fails to mention the heights requiring consultation plan, fails to comment and explain it, and it fails to evaluate any potential impact of what is described. the deir is there for incomplete and not accurate. >> madam president, there is a motion on the floor and a second. if commissioners, before you is a motion to certify the final environmental impact report. on that motion -- [roll call vote]

commissioners, that motion passed on a vote of 4-3, with commissioners moore, sugaya, and olague voting against the certification. the eir has been approved. is there a motion? >> i would like to move this item for the draft presentation. >> second. >> roll-call vote -- [roll call vote] 7 ayes, 0 no's.

president olague: yes, after commissioner cheng, will be taking a recess of about 10 minutes. cheng: they have been meeting week in and week out, and having more meetings. i want to thank them for being here and please communicate our appreciation to all of your members, thank you. secretary avery: >> thank you, the joint hearing of the planning commission and the treasure island authority is back in session. commissioners, planning commissioners. you are now on -- going into the

special calendar with item no. 2, a through one of those letters -- a through h. for the record. 2a, case number -- ebmrtuqz, treasure island/yerba buena island, 2a is adapting environmental findings and statement of overriding considerations under the california environmental quality act in connection with the adoption of the project and related actions necessary to implement the project. 2b is request for amendments to the general plan, including amendments to the commerce and industry element, community facilities element, housing element, recreation and open space element, transportation element, urban design element, land use index along with other

minor general plan map amendments and adoption of the treasure island yerba buena island area plan. 2c is establishing findings of the consistency with the general plan and the city of san francisco and section 101.1 and city planning code and treasure island/yerba buena island. 2d is amendments to the san francisco planning code by amending section 102.5 and 201 to include the treasure island yerba buena island special use district and amending section 105 relating to the height and bulk limits for treasure island and yerba buena island -- and amending table 270 to recognize this district. item 2e is question for approval for the treasure island yerba

buena island design for development document. 2f is request for amendments to the san francisco zoning maps by adding new sectional ma zn14 to show the zoning designations of treasure island and yerba buena island, adding new sectional map ht14 to establish the height and bulk district for treasure island and yerba buena island, adding new sectional use map su14 to establish thek treasure island yerba buena island special use district. 2g, making office allocation findings pursuant to the planning code sections 320-325 for the prioritization of 100,000 square feet of office space for the treasure island yerba buena island project. and 2h is the request for approval of a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and treasure island yerba buena island llc for certain real

property, 1939-001 and 1939-002 all together consisting of approximately 450 acres for a term of 30 years. thank you. the staff presentations? >> rich ellis from the economic offs on and workforce development. we planned to do a presentation at that point but given the lengthy detail you went into, i wanted to highlight that is part of the resolution adopting environmental findings, a statement of overriding considerations that lay out the public benefits associated with the treasure island project so i wanted to highlight those for you here. as you know, the project creates a new san francisco neighborhood with over 8,000 -- up to 8,000

homes, up to 450,000 square foot of retail and historic use as well as 300 acres, 2/3 of the island developed to public open space. the infrastructure associated with the project, the developer will be purchasing the presents or the city will be purchasing the property, reimbursed by the developer from the navy. all new utility infrastructure including streets, sewers, water lines at a cost of $179 million. the geotechnical improvements we heard of, strengthening of the land as well as the sea level rise protections, increasing the height of the island up to five feet around the island. the transportation program includes both incentives to use transit as well as ways to discourage car use.

there's congestion pricing on the bridge as well as a requirement that pre-paid transit vouchers be purchased by every home on the island. there's a capital investment of $145 million including a new ferry terminal, new streets and road ways and bike path, new buses and shuttles as well as a $30 million transit operating subsidy to be used for a.c. transit and weta to subsidize the ferry service. 2/3 of the land dedicated to open space at a cost of $124 million for the improvements and o.& m. costs for the open space paid out of the project. affordable housing, we discussed 2,000 new units of affordable housing, and units dedicating to tihdi use for homeless as well

as inclusion units. again, we have the opportunity to increase the number of units over time if we're able to get additional resources from the state or on the local level. community facilities will be renovated public school as well as new police and fire station and up to 33,000 square feet of additional community space including space for daycare, senior care, as well as just general community space. there's a land pad created for the treasure island sailing center and environmental education center and retenth of existing facilities including the chapel of the existing gym and dlansy street life learning academy. finally, there's numerous jobs created between 2000 and 3,000 construction jobs annually as well as 2,000 permanent jobs on the island at build-out, i'll turn it over to josh sletski to

talk about the various items before you. >> good evening. i'm going to take you through the eight actions before you this evening that are necessary to enable the treasure island/yerba buena island development project. the first action is the adoption of sequafindings and statement overriding considerations which are necessary in order to take action implementing the project including mitigation monitoring and reporting program. action two is improvements to the general plan. you initiated amendments of the general plan at your march 3 hearing, including adoption of a new treasure island yerba buena island plan into the general plan and adoption of series of maps throughout the plan to incorporate references as the islands do not appear on the key maps in the general plan. the new area plan contains high level objectives and policies calling for the development of islands for mixed use

neighborhoods and the proposed project would be consistent with these policies. action 3 is adoption of the general plan and planning code related to all city actions related to the project. for almost any action you and other entities take with regards to the approval of the proposed development project, these actions need to be found consistent with the general plan and planning code. the approvals before you are structured to make these findings in a single resolution so all other actions refer back to this resolution which finds the actions consistent with the general plan as amended. the next three items on the calendar are amendments to the planning code text, approval of the design for development and approval of the zoning map amendments. at the same hearing in which you initiated general plan amendments, you also initiated zoning amendments. special use district and height and bulk districts and as previously presented to you, the s.u.d. contains the land use and core controls for the island

including establishing new zoning districts for the islands, designating permanent land use, maximum parking ratios and establishing permit review and procedure for individual building projects. it refers to the building design document above you for approval as the supplementary set of quantitive and qualitative design guidelines. no other part of the planning code will be relevant to regulation on the islands. the design for development document which in addition to rereflecting the controls and the special use district contains a more comprehensive set of building standards and design guidelines for vertical development. the d for d also lays out design for the island and streets and open developments but these are referred to as horr zontle development under tihdi.

key aspects of the special use districts and d for d including height limits and bulk are problematic elements that would be vested to the developer in the development agreement before you so any future proposed changes to the s.u.d. or d for d that would affect these aspects of the project would require with the developer. special use district, new zoning districts and height and bulk districts in the zoning maps. the next action is resolution to assign priority for up to 100,000 gross square feet of office space on treasure island pursuant to the office use program. granting such approval would provide priority for any such office space ahead of other office projects citywide in any particular year except for other previous such priority allocations that have been adopted granted to mission bay and hunters' point as well as

behind the transbay transit tower. you are not precluding the requirement that individual office projects come before you for final design approval once permits for such buildings are submitted. the findings before you stipulate that furniture planning code section d1 up to 121 square feet of office development promotes the public welfare convenience and necessity. the final action before you is approval of the proposed development agreement pursuant to chapter 56 of the city's administrative code between the developer, dicd and city and county of san francisco. the development agreement establishes the rights being vested to the developer to develop the project with its current proposed program of land use building form and parking for the term of the development agreement and freezes in place current development fees for 20 years with certain exceptions. the actions before you today would constitute the commission's primary oversight over the billion dollar out of the project. in doing so, you would be approving the zone program for

all the vertical development on the islands. would have jurisdiction -- to ensure compliance with standards. approving projects pursuant to procedures of special use district and individual buildings that meet all of the guidelines would not come before you for specific individual building approval though all buildings over 70 feet in height would come to the commission for a public hearing so that the commission and the public can advise the planning director on their design. also importantly any project seeking major exceptions from any of the standards or needing conditional use standards, any building that seeks to deviate in a notable way would need to come to the commission for individual discretionary approval action. you did receive an errata package in the past week and the actions before you are on the documents as reflected through incorporation of those errata.

if you wish, rich ilis can walk you through the errata. as a housekeeping note as is the case with many other major plans we work at that have many numerous documents and motions before you, staff requests that the commission affirmatively grant staff the authority to correct any typographical or grammatical errors in the motions we may find as we finalize them. with that, the planning department recommends approval of each of these actions. i or other staff would be happy to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> open it up to general public comment. we have speaker cards but we will ask people to stand in one line and to come up to speak. the speaker cards were confusing because it was hard to determine what item people wanted to speak

to. so, and i would ask you to speak, you know, as loud as you can into the mic for the benefit of the court reporter who is trying to pick up what people are saying. it was difficult before. >>. thank you. >> good evening, eric brooks representing san francisco green party and local grass roots organization, our city. i want to expand on what i said during the e.i.r. comments to get to the core problem you're facing with the votes you have right now. you know that the e.i.r. will be dealt with a challenge at the board, possible legal action, et cetera. so that track is taken care of. this one needs a lot more time and a lot more thought. and just to give you an example of what i'm talking about, i'll refer to what i raised in the e.i.r. discussion as an example of how staff is in way over their heads right now. they're not treading water.

because of the governance and extensive financial changes in the project -- and here's an example. just on tsunami. less than two weeks ago in land use staff went forward, admitted that the e.i.r. and the plan do not account for 10-foot -- higher than 10 feet of a tsunami and they said point blank, very honestly, that's for emergency planning, not for design planning and this project, which is, as i said in the e.i.r. comments, was crazy. tonight, we hear from other members of your staff. they're saying, no, the e.i.r. covers all possible tsunami dangers so those are two conflicting statements but here's the worst one. after that land use hearing a couple of days later, mr. tineoff and an engineer from

b.k.f. engineers, todd adair, here's the conversation -- one of the commissioners, torres, is this area vulnerable to potential tsunami? todd adair, no, it is protected by the golden golden gate. we can get into a lot of details about tsunamis. commissioner torres, so you're taking care of that? yes. so somebody's lying and staff needs to -- mr. tanoff needs to explain to you why he didn't interfere with that comment. president cheng: anything you would like to submit in email is welcome. >> sherry williams, treasure island homeless development initiative, i've indicated support for the project but neglected to hand in all the letters from the member organizations supporting the project in full. so if i could, i would like to submit them to you now. thank you. president cheng: thank you.

>> very hard to address eight items in two minutes to permit a city the size of santa cruz that started out as a village and is now almost 20,000-person city relative to overriding considerations, commissioners, from both commissions, i direct you to your s document volume 1. you will need to find that significant impacts, the 10,000 to the 30x to the 47, to aesthetic impacts, to air quality impacts, noise impacts, are overridden by the benefits of this project as they've been reduced. relative to governance, i would submit to you that this is unprecedented in san francisco history. you are creating a virtually separate government with its own entitlement ability that is

virtually unaccountable to the planning commission. you are turning the general plan on its head and finally as my time is running down, as to the development agreement, it usurps the power of the executive and legislative branches of government. i hope you are all aware that even if the board of supervisors and mayor pass new fees or new laws, they will not affect treasure island for 20 years. this is without precedent in the city and county of san francisco's history. cheng is there -- president cheng: any additional public comment at this time? >> good evening. president cheng: if you can wait one moment for ms. avery to set the clock. >> thank you. good evening, chairs, commissioners, directors, for the record, karen noel pierce,

chairman of the treasure island/yerba buena island citizen's advisory board. tuesday night the cab met and took action on a recommendation to the tihdi board on approval of the transactions and tihdi documents including the naval agreement, trust change, tihdi, transition housing rules and regulations and the habitat management community facility sustainability and transportation plans. the vote at the end of the evening was 20 in favor of the recommendation and one against. of the three members who were not present at our meeting, two members wrote strong and heartfelt support letters of the plan. and in addition to that, the four residents of the islands who sit on our board also voted in favor of this recommendation.

so we had a very exciting evening and we're all looking forward to continuing and to the next steps. thank you all so much. president cheng: thank you. nancy shanahan. i would like to remind you that the froms -- there's no guarantee that the promised benefits will be delivered. according to press reports, the project sponsor, lennar corporation, has filed for bankruptcy in a similar base project citing economic pressures. media reports indicate they're financially stressed. the proposed project does not require financial guarantees that will ensure that the developer will actually be in a

position to deliver the promised public benefits you're considering overriding tonight. there are other recent examples in san francisco such as the pier 30-32 cruise ship terminal where in spite of title. approvals by the city and enact. of special legislation, the public benefits were never realized. i'd also like to quickly point out that the mitigation measures cited in the e.i.r. are inadequate to reduce the most significant feeckets traffic. not only are the mitigation measures not adequate to mitigate the most significant impacts listed as 40 to 42 in your yellow pages, the e.i.r. says that the mitigation measures as to increased bus and ferry service will depend on identifying funding, approvals

by other agencies and additional environmental review. this is not acceptable under ceqa. this is hypocritical and misleading. [bell] >> it's a great project and we hope you pass it and make it happen. thank you so much.

president cheng: thank you. >> i would just like to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues and others and want to emphasize our concern about the exemption of the project from future regulation. we feel this is inappropriate strategy for securing the project and we leave it at that. thank you very much. president cheng: any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: ceqa asks us, have the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts of the project. i leave that hanging and i'm going to quote from livable cities, letter on the governance structure which is very important part to consider if we're going to the next number of approvals. "we have long objected to the fragmentation of planning in

san francisco away from the planning department commission and towards various unaccountable bodies. the impending demise could bring the city under single planning code and administration with unified and coordinated planning vision. now that the treasure island supermarket proposed to be governed by the planning code, it is point thomas maintain a separate tihdi bureaucracy. the existing waterfront design advisory committee providing design review of projects on trust land. i like to pose a challenge to the planning department. the planning commission has been in the trenches with this department on what i consider outstanding standards for what area plans are -- i like to

mention eastern neighborhoods, - not very much under your own guidance and i say that with a reasonable degree of confidence. you're missing a chance to really bring this project back to where it belongs. if we're looking and planning a new neighborhood for san francisco, this is your opportunity, and i will later on speak to why the d for d as it stands right now are not really workable for you. thank you. president cheng: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i'm in favor of the proposals before us and as we know, development agreements in particular move with the project

are not with a particular sponsor, particular developer, and if these change, the obligation is still there both for all the public benefits and all the things that we're requiring and this is actually often advantageous because law changes may occur and they may occur that are disadvantageous to the general public but the development agreement takes priority, so -- and i think this is a very good development agreement and we've read through it, we've heard what it has in it, and so i don't have any concerns about the fact that there could be another builder, another horizontal developmenter that may occur during the process of treasure island being built, not that that is necessarily going to happen and we've seen this in other projects certainly with mission bay and as