project, sail away ♪ and i hope it turns out good, because -- ♪ smoke on the water made the project work out a good because there is no more smoke on the water -- make it turn out right. no more island. treasure island// -- treasure island/yerba buena ♪ president chiu: thank you, enya. >> he was speaking for this?

i do not know about all of you, but i wanted to live in a place where i did not have to drive everywhere. right now, what we are proposing to build is not appropriate for san francisco. we have not mitigated how to deal with the trafficking front and back. it will be up to a future board of supervisors. i challenge you to figure out these problems now before you build, to make this the dream -- green eco-city. we do not need a car for every family in san francisco. please, recirculate this eir, come up with ideas. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, recology.

i am not going to go over what you have already been told. here we are. we know how this is going to go tonight. there are people here from labor who need work. there are people here from homeless organizations and shelters. there are people from housing organizations that want to see housing built, so i ask you, supervisors. i stood here in a 2004 and urge you to pass the phase one disposition of the agreement and environmental impact report for the hunters job -- hunter gérard shipyard. where are the jobs? jobs were promised. where are the jobs? holmes, 300 homes were promised to these people. where are these times? we did the same thing last june and july on the hunters yard shipyard phase two.

where are the jobs? $37 million was promised for hunters point for community development. shelters, programs. where are those programs? today, and your reviewing the exact same promises, and we have the exact same problems. when you vote today, you will be casting your vote and making your promise to these individuals that these things will, in fact, occur. 2004, 2011, 20205? -- 2025? when will these promises be fulfilled? it is not my litigation because i have sued nothing. so it is up to you. thank you.

thank you. i want to welcome a former president of this group, mr. huskins. -- peskin. mr. peskin: let me just take one issue korea it says "shall not consider," and i submit that this matter is not properly before this body at this time. having said that to my successors and former colleagues, this project is too large to fail. the environmental impact report is not a project impact report. you have heard that, very

clearly, i think, from mr. wagner. if you do one thing, and i know you are under tremendous pressure it. i have been under this pressure. i know how much juice is behind this. it actually has more juice than behind the hunters park shipyard. i get it. a semi adjudicatory judicial capacity. adjudicate this. this is a problematic eir. the product description does not exist. this is a fact. it is on it -- incontrovertible. it is a matter of case law. it is absolutely true that these gentlemen or any of the other of your subject matter people, if they contradicted, it is

absolutely true and correct. those are my comments. thank you, president chiu. president chiu: are there any others who want to speak for the appellant? seeing none, why do we not go to the planning department could -- department? if you could raise the microphone, that would help. >> good evening, president chiu, members. i am -- with me this evening or are planning director, it bill, an environmental review officer, victoria, as well as others, michael, and someone from the economic and work force development. the item before you is the eir

for the proposed project. the planning commission certified this. the decision before the board this evening is whether to have the board decision to certify this final eir or to overturn the decision and return eir. the question at hand, according to ceqa and not the merits of the project. once certified, the board will have the opportunity to consider other aspects of the project. the treasure island development authority is proposing to amend the san francisco general plan to add a redevelopment area plan that would provide the basis of development of portions of treasure island still owed by the navy. they have also proposed they

adopt amendments to the planning code and zoning map to establish a special use district and height and bulk district. standards and guidelines for the basis of developing control sukeforth. the proposed area plan is set for the moment with in the project site, which includes all of treasure island and yerba buena except for land owned and occupied by the government. this would be governed by the plan, the height and bulk district, the subdivision code, the mitigation monitoring and a monarch -- moderate -- monetary

program, and others. there is also a development agreement and the related plan documents. this would be 8000 residential units, of which approximately 2000 would be affordable with new retail space, a to 100,000 square feet of new retail space, adaptive reuse of about 11 dozen square feet for commercial and of approximately 500 hotel rooms, upgraded utilities, about 300 acres of parks, play field, and new and upgraded streets and public ways, but pedestrian facilities, a sailing center, services for a marina,

and more. the buildup of the project would be phased to occur over approximately a 15 to 20 year period. a range of building heights is proposed on treasure island. about half will be in low-rise buildings up to 7 feet with a range of mid rise and high rise buildings up to 240 feet. the maximum height buildings would be located on the southern part of treasure island, 315 feet in three areas and a maximum height limit of 450 feet at the site of the main tower. the other would be built similarly, with a small amount of neighborhood space. officers' quarters and buildings

would be adapted for uses such as a hotel, and wellness center, and possibly a restaurant. it would manage and improved plant and wildlife habitat in the and developed portion of yerba buena island. transportation facilities include the construction of hubcap which would provide bus service to downtown, ferry service from the west side of treasuring into downtown san francisco, in shelters on both islands, and the ferry terminal would be constructed, including dogs, breakwaters, with a network of bicycle and other paths connecting the islands. infrastructure improvements including new or upgraded distribution piping from the island, but new tanks, a

recycled water treatment plant with a recycle water for irrigation and appropriate clothing facilities, commercial and residential buildings on treasure island, new were waste water collection, a new waste- water treatment plant, near the electricity, natural gas, and a communications facility in solar power generation facility. the proposed project in prince seismic safety. components include a stabilization of the causeway connecting the islands, and there would be it's film where the buildings and roads are proposed. there will be long-term protection against flooding, including an allowance for the estimated potential future sea level rise. strengthening the perimeter berm

around treasure island, and repairing the retaining wall for the yerba buena island. as noted, and number of revisions have occurred since the draft eir and distribution of the document. the revisions relate to a change in the structure of the documents under which the project would be implemented, and the was a dress from march 5, 2010. a new area plan would be added to the general plan, andan sud in height and bulk code would be added. the planning department or planning commission would be involved, and there are

opportunities for review. there is financing under redevelopment law and the infrastructure district was. as a result of this change, the number of affordable housing units would change from the approximately 2400 units described in the eir to approximately 2000 units. in addition and in response to public comments, the proposed maximum heights for the town were was lowered from 650 feet, and other terrorist reduced from the original. also, maximum parking ratios on treasuring would have been reduced. parking ratios for hotels were

reduced by a moat. force bases her room. of the space ratios were reduced per one dozen square feet, and the reduction in parking ratios with the maximum number of parking spaces on the island is reduced approximately 470. approximately 10,680 spaces. there is no change in parkton for yerba buena island. as noted in the april memo, which is attached to the response, the project revisions have been reviewed by planning department staff. in that context, there was a determination that there would be no new or substantial increase in some of the impacts and no mitigation measures would be necessary.

there is exhibit b. this is on behalf of several people and organizations as well eft -- as aaron peskin. this was dated from may 2011. there are findings related to actions to approve the project, and these were put in a separate area according to ceqa guidelines. these findings were not subject to the appeal before the board because they are legally required.

the certification of the eir is limited to the accuracy and objective this of the final eir, including but not limited to the sufficiency of the final eir as an informational document. other than procedural issue is rated earlier -- raised earlier, of the issues raised, i would like to focus my remarks tonight on some of the main issues that have been raised in the letter and in tonight's hearing. first, they say that it has changed to a private/non-profit corporation. as described in detail in a response, the city created a nonprofit corporation and a public agency. in 1997, the board of supervisors passed a resolution authorizing the creation of a

non-profit public benefit corporation as the treasure island develop authority to act as a single entity focused on the planning, we development, we construction, rehabilitation, we use, and conversion located on treasure and yerba buena island. for the welfare and common benefit of the residents of the city and county of san francisco. this was said to the budget and fiscal provisions of the city charter. the pellets also allege that fundamental changes to the project description and sponsor objectives that occurred after the eir were circulated means there needs to be further public comment. there was tax fund in using -- features which could in turn result in a full environmental impact.

production from 30% to 20% affordable housing. production in height limits. changes have occurred. the planning department has read them all at it and determined that none would result in new significant physical and impacts. as described in detail in a response, none of these revisions are a fundamental change that would result in new significant physical and environmental effects. all were gone over by the planning department, no incident has been found. no physical features of the project have been altered as a result of the financing. development does not need to and is not propose to change. they would be obligated to deliver public benefit proportionate with the development by phase and sub

phase. it includes all the powers, including trusty. without increasing ball or changing separation of powers. therefore, no news in the impacts would result, as explained in the memorandum. yeah appellants also allege that this is -- does not meet ceqa requirements. it suggests the eir should be considered not a project level eir because they're insufficient details about the project. as stated need for a more subscription appears to be a misunderstanding of the height limits. both of these features of the project provide some possibilities for infrastructure that both are well defined and

fully analyzed in the eir with regard to the impact. the appellants also raised concerns that there are new public safety issues regarding impacts on trouble following certification. it however, the issues and effects are not new information. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions to planning? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. the project level eir, but it appears to more of a different eir, can you go into more detail about your response? >> we were able to analyze the

project as a project level eir. enough information for us to be able to determine what those impacts would be. the dda provides enough information for us to do the analysis that we need in order to define what the impacts of the project would be when it is constructed. supervisor avalos: if you can describe what the major impacts are and how you feel satisfied this is the right approach could >> well, we have a comprehensive list of all the effects of that project under that scheme, and an example -- supervisor avalos: an example

would be great. >> for example, we have a representation of what the project would look under the development controls, and on that basis, we are able to impact -- figure out what the impact of the shadows would be on the project site. similarly, for wind, we were able to just a model boat of the project site at buildout using a plan, and under that plan, there are enough controls for us to be able to have an adequate level. supervisor avalos: and some you might have a range for how different parts of the island may be developed based on height. that is not all certain. we expect that as you move forward, this will be developed, and you feel the analysis yet provided will give you the information to know the impacts. >> yes, i do.

there is a certain amount of relief provided in the dda. there are enough specifics in there for us to be able to do that analysis. supervisor avalos: the impact of development within the islands, how we can actually -- we do not have a level of detail for what the projects art " or what development sites are born to be within the island itself, so it seems like you do not have a real depth of analysis to describe what the impacts will be a with building high on one part of the island versus selling the other, and how do you make up for that? >> we believe we actually do have the level of information based on the zones in which development would occur. supervisor avalos: there was another point that was made

about the change from redevelopment, tax increment financing towards infrastructure ifd financing. how does that change the staging of the project moving forward? i have been told that ifd funding would prolong financing, how we could have concurrent things or residents on the island. >> from the office of economic development. the change we made, through the

it infrastructure financing district, it was primarily a financing one. it was a tool to assist. but they work exactly the same. it is property-tax increments from future development that is used to secure and issue bonds. the appellants touched on this a lot during the presentation, but, in essence, the bondholder looks to what the security is, what they are purchasing bonds for. a bond issuance is exactly the same as property tax from future development, so we do not thing that will have an impact at all. it is a very similar financing tool. the underlying zoning as well as the physical project that is before you, it did not change all as a result of the changed from re-development to

infrastructure financing. the only difference is the amount of income and that is available. it is about 80 cents for coat tax bonds and 57 cents for infrastructure financing bonds, so one response we made to that then was to make a reduction in the minimum level of affordable housing to 20%. we are hoping to get that back up to 30% through state legislative changes that supervisor kim has encouraged supervisors ammiano to make at the state level, so this does not change all because of the financing. supervisor avalos: so you stay on the same time line? >> with or without that that inflation, we would have the same, subdevelopment would

proceed along the same. the tax increment bonds in this case would be issued. the developer would also actually be out in front. they would be reimbursed partially. it should have no impact on the fees. supervisor avalos: thank you. president chiu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: high was wondering if you could clarify some of these. the ferry and the 108 are included. can you explain that and also talked-about home ownership could >> from the office of

economic the moment again. so, obviously, transportation is a big issue in this project, and in response, there are a number of ways we mitigate potential trades effects. one would be that all households purchase a clipper card that could be used for either the ferry, transit, or muni, so all households would be required to purchase that fast does it. supervisor kim: -- to purchase up fast pass. supervisor kim: it is my understanding we cannot move forward with the building heights without approval from the coast guard. the coast guard has been able to do this with many other