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 amount of 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 public. it is a shortcoming of the e.r. -- of the eir. the 2011 plan does not provide any comparable information. the 2006 plan is based on a remark of smart growth, new neighborhood design, and a very block structure resulting in a

plan that creates a more interesting urban form than what is currently suggested. the 2011 plan has changed the basic residential structure into a more generic, less interesting arrangement of uniformly parallel residential blocks, which makes the plan look regimented. the 2006 plan provided a green connector which is a mid block open space. the screen connector informally weaves through the neighborhood fabric and is planned to support a variety of adjoining residential blocks to knit together the entire community. the 2011 plan has a fantasy idea of the neighborhood green connector set into a 40 ft. wide concept which is noticeably

more informal. it makes the block pattern book not only less interesting, but less varied. it looks quite regimented. the 2006 plan proposes a total of seven street types. i am referring to the 2006 transportation plan. each is intended to respond to the varying circulation needs of different parts of the community, in keeping with smart growth and new urbanism and sustainability growth for st. design. the proposed street plan suggest your and neyra were moving lines and then what has been dictated in the past. standards which have proved not to compromise either safety for pedestrians or vehicular movement, but support

operational standards. this has reduced the total number of proposed streets sections 23 generic street types. that is the transportation plan of 2011, pageis may turn out toe less. some may turn out to be more significant. some may add to the already exhaustive list of unavoidable impacts identified in this eir. i conclude in support of commissioner sugaya that without any revised project description, this is inaccurate and incomplete. i will pick up after i hear from my fellow commissioners. commissioner delcarlo: good evening. thank you to all the members of the public that spoke to mike. it is very helpful to hear the views from our diverse community. we heard from labor and business

tonight, and a number of residents and representatives from treasure island/yerba buena island. thank you for that. i would have to disagree with those planning commissioners that are recommending recirculation of the eir. i am one treasure island development authority, but some of my colleagues have been at this for at least over 10 years, maybe 12. i do not know exactly. the short time that i have been on this board, i have been briefed a very, very well. my questions have been answered. i have seen the support from not just the treasure island community, but the community of san francisco in general. i feel very good about the process that we have gone through and how this plan has

been feted for years -- been vetted for years. i am very disappointed that we are not going to get 30% affordable housing. i was hoping that that would happen. because of the change in financing that was necessary to deal with the governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment, unfortunately, the infrastructure financing districts do not raise as much money as the tax increment financing of a redevelopment area. that is just a fact of life. i think the staff of the office of economic development and workforce development and the development team have done an excellent job in informing us of how the ifd's work and the difference between that and redevelopment financing.

i think that our members understand that very well. we were given an opportunity to ask a number of questions, and we are very satisfied with the answers that we received. i feel strongly that the city has been waiting a long time for this project. people have been talking about it and looking forward to it. the jobs that it will create are an enormous and will greatly support and improve the economy of the whole city. my heart goes out to those workers who have not been able to work for such a long time. i want to see them working. i want to see this development go forward now, and not be delayed any longer. and i will support the approval of the eir and later will

support the approval of the dda. i am anxious to see it go forward. i am anxious to see folks going back to work. i would urge an aye vote on the eir tonight. commissioner mazzola: first, i would like to ask a question of staff regarding an issue that was brought up earlier in public comment. somebody said there were too many changes of not enough time to review them. can i please ask staff what has changed in eir? >> perhaps you could be more specific. there have been some changes to the project that have been reflected since the publication of the draft eir. those were requested in the

comments and responses document. there are further changes are described in a memorandum sent to you, mostly regarding changes in the financing of the project and some other changes in the development project itself. we did not find any of those light changes to change the analysis or conclusions of the eir. commissioner mazzola: thank you. i am in favor of approving this. as far as affordable housing goes, and there has been some questions about this -- in the case of redevelopment and in the case of ifd's, in both cases we are well above the minimum required. i think that is important for everybody to understand. 25% is above the minimum.

the affordable housing advocates on treasure island, tihdi, are asking you to approve this. so is the citizen's advisory board. i feel that this horse has been beat to death. i am also a new commissioner, but this has been going on for 10 to 15 years. we cannot afford as a city to let this project go. we cannot delay it and delay it and the late it. it makes the sense. it is time. it is ready. like my colleague just said, and some building trade members in the audience have said, the trades have been hit in a way where we have never seen it before, unprecedented. we have 30% to 50% unemployment

across the board in the building trades for over two years. i cannot tell you how many stories of members -- the membership is dropping out in huge numbers because the cannot afford to stay in the unions. secondly, they have no health and welfare anymore. they are running out of unemployment. they are draining everything out of there for 01 if they can get it. i hear the stories every day. this project needs to happen to revitalize the city and to get construction back on track. it is very important for working men and women in this city. i would like to end by saying that i think -- i think this is a well thought out project. over like i said plenty of years, it has gone in front of the board of supervisors, a

different board of supervisors. it has been approved. i think the developer has gone out of his way to work with everybody and make sure that everybody is taken care of. they have gone over and above what the minimum qualifications are as far as rent-controlled, affordable housing. they have gone over and above every time. they have done everything asked of them, and then some. i ask for your support for this project. it is vitally important to san francisco. we need to get it back on track. we need to get our people working. commissioner richardson: i wanted to take this opportunity to recognize and thank my fellow commissioners on the planning side, and members of tihdi. but in particular i wanted to acknowledge the work of the planning staff, san francisco planning, tihdi, the mayor's

office of economic development, and the city staff from the various agencies that make a contribution to this. as a former planning commissioner, i worked on the other side. i have had the opportunity and privilege in all my years in san francisco to sit through numerous eir proceedings where the public had a chance to speak. significant projects in san francisco like mission bay, the giants stadium, and a lot of projects that have today transformed san francisco -- all the projects in question had tremendous transportation impact. and the city staff, san francisco staff, are known throughout this country and worldwide, for the work they do. i just want to put that on the

record. record. i also wanted to state