long beach. if you could talk a little bit about that, as well. but the office of work force development. you are correct. we have worked closely with the coast guard and our team of design architects to come up with a process based on a height map, a very specific height map, given where you are on the island. buildings exceeding a certain height would have to go through a process to verify that that building would not injured year -- would not interfere with the coast guard system. staff will look to documentation that would detail whether or not this process had been followed and whether or not in direction would occur and what the appropriate measures to limit that interruption -- supervisor kim: and about the

heights, but there was the initial draft eir, we have also talked a little bit about the deflects heights, but the eir, and maybe this is a question for planning, the eir that was written still takes into account the environmental impact if we bill them at the new maximum lowered heights or treasure island. is that correct even what heights differentiated based on location, the environmental impacts will be the same could >> that is absolutely correct. or less. supervisor kim: as detailed in the eir. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. president, and through the

chair. the eir, a matter of discretion -- is that not the case? >> yes, that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: i think the proper inquiry for this discussion is about sufficient analysis, so we are able to honestly, comprehensively consider the environmental consequences of the project, so this sounds like a coin toss actually. >> well, i would address them in a slightly different manner. the question is whether we have enough information in order to form an analysis that would describe the environmental impacts of a project level.

supervisor mirkarimi: and based on the concerns articulated by the appellants, you think there is enough coverage that tends to those particular concerns and mitigation? >> that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: to the question of transit, i had made an amendment that had been honored by the project sponsors. is it possible for you or perhaps this other man to remind us what this looks like so we can be clear about what that amendment is >> sure. the office of economic development. so the amendment that was made in committee basically imposes the impact fee on future office development, which i believe

was up to 100,000 square feet, so that would apply to future development. currently, it only applies to the downtown district. supervisor mirkarimi: and the trigger for that is what? >> the trigger is development. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, and in regard to -- back to planning, the certification in the eir, it is that potentially we would, if it is structured not the same but similar, we would find different results. if you could just -- i want to hear in your interpretation what that means in the minds of the planning department. >> right. i believe the assertion is that somehow we would find a

different set of environmental impacts, and it is our opinion, as of the april 12 provided in advance of the planning board certification, we did not believe these changes in -- would result to changes in environmental effects and that that was not required. there are several bars enumerated in the c.b. guidelines that require certification, among them whether the proposed project, whether it would be significantly different or substantially greater with environmental effects that were reported in the eir, whether they're a big potential alternatives, and as we have described in that memo, we

believe that we circulation is not required. i -- i supervisor mirkarimi: -- can summon address this with regard to notification? president chiu: to our deputy city attorney. >> i think the particular section we're referring to is a subsection, which says while the appeal is pending and until the eir is amended or recertified best required by the board, the

city will not carry out the approval of a project that is the subject of an eir, so conducting informational hearings does not trigger -- that does not result in carrying out or consider the approval of the project. if the land use committee forwards the item as a procedural matter to the full board without actually taking an action or considering taking an action, which would be to forward it with recommendation to the full board, that does not trip this requirement. so it is a permissible process. the board of supervisors committees do this on a regular basis when there is an eir appeal pending. supervisor mirkarimi: in a layman's terms, it would --

there would be a 10-day notification process? >> the process that the city has set up under chapter 31 -- it is up to any city or county to set up whatever process they choose. we provided for a 20-day time after the planning commission certifies and eir for anyone who was involved in the process to file an appeal with the board of supervisors. so until such an appeal is actually filed, the city and all its departments and commissions may proceed with the approval actions related to that project. however, once an appeal is filed, that is when eight freeze occurs on taking an action that would constitute an approval action or considering an approval, which would be in the board's case, for a committee,

forward a recommendation of approval to the full board of supervisors. supervisor mar: this area of law is so fuzzy and subjective. i recall yesterday at the land use committee -- i know other members of the planning department were there as well. i recall at the beginning of the hearing of the treasure island item a supervisor raised a question about not so much whether we are considering the item but more of were we to take any action. your response was we are not going to take any action or cannot. the only appropriate action would be to refer it to the full board without recommendation. but it is still very fuzzy to me whether the land use committee considered approval of the project. that is making me a bit

uncomfortable. i do know you advised as at the beginning of the meeting and it was clarified right before we were discussing it that we were not to take any action on the item. could you elaborate on that so i am absolutely clear that we did not "consider" the item? >> our typical practice is to do exactly what occurred yesterday. we usually announce at the very beginning of a hearing, so the public is aware of the position that there is an eir appeal pending. therefore, the board committee cannot taken action to for the item to the board with a recommendation. that would constitute either taking an action or considering the taking of an action. we try to make that clear at the beginning of a hearing that what you are doing and the way the board process is set up is we conduct our public hearings

through board committees, generally. when we do have an eir appeal pending, we allow those hearings to continue with the right notification that we are following through with the hearing process but the committee is not considering any action, which would be to forward it to the board with recommendation. the advice is if the committee wants to bring it before the full board, which is where the action would be taken to approve an item, that what the committee should do if they want to procedurally bring it before the full board is to pass it on without recommendation. that is appropriate under the terms of chapter 31. supervisor mar: i am reading subsection 8.3. it says that while the appeal is pending the city shall not carry out -- we did not carry out -- or consider approval of the

project -- and we did not consider approval of the project because it was made clear at the beginning of the hearing. is that correct? >> that is correct. supervisor mar: i have follow-up questions for mr. cooper. it is very subjective whether this project eir -- appellants are climbing in reality it is a program eir. i need more specifics about how you would distinguish that what is being considered has adequate analysis, as supervisor mercury mentioned. the appellant highlights there was not sufficient analysis to constitute a project-level review. that is on page 11. they go on to mention it did not have the details necessary to assess, let alone mitigate,

project-level impacts. that is on page 12. they conclude the plan was only conceptual, or could be changed in the future, and that the project level details for the development do not presently exists. they go on to explain that. could you give us more examples of why you are absolutely sure that this is a project eir and not a program eir? >> i would like to begin by saying we provide a full, comprehensive response to those issues in our response. >> >> -- supervisor mar: if you could summarize those, that would be helpful for me. >> in general, we have provided

enough information at a project level to be able to fully describe what the impact would be. that is really the response. supervisor mar: give one or 2 below examples, please. >> i would like to turn to victoria wise. >> transportation is an example in addition to wind and shadow. with regard to transportation, it is very detailed. the level of detail required in order to evaluate impact is the same detail we would require of a single development -- a tower downtown. more specifically, we know the exact type of land uses that will be provided.

that allows us to figure out the trip generation. with bicycle facilities, there are figures that show exactly where bicycle facilities are going to be located. not only that, but it shows the width of the facility. that is the kind of detail we would require for project-level analysis. transportation is an example. there are all kinds of details of what the street would look like, the sidewalks. supervisor mar: is it relevant that those could be changed, for example? >> i want to clarify the project description. the project description is very specific in virtually all respects. mr. cooper asked before he did his presentation whether i could

shorten the project description. i advised him know. it may have been tedious to listen to all that detail. but you should know the specificity of the project. the development on the island is very specific. there is a narrow band of the island where more developments can happen. there are areas where open space is extremely specific in terms of the amount of housing, the amount of commercial space, different types of commercial space, neighborhoods servant

broader retail, a hotel, etc. the thing that may be causing some confusion is that within the narrow band of geographic area where development will happen, and within that very specific development program in terms of land use, there is flex space that you might think of as sub-blocks where the program is specific, the geographic nature is specific, but there is flexibility in terms of where there is a particular massing, a particular skill. -- scale. supervisor mar: another is flexibility on the eastern side. >> i will supplement what mr.

cooper and ms. weis said. there is a question of how much is specific to exact details of a site versus what is generalized. i think the examples they gave in terms of shadow, wind, and aspects of transportation are good examples. do you have enough recreational space? that is assessed on a whole. air quality is a mixed bag. some is of the regional character. some are cite specific. where things are appropriate to be site specific, in terms of this very narrow band of development -- we gave that narrow level of detail. traffic on the bridge all congeals on to the bridge. the development program is going to drive that result, not the

sighting of a specific program. one further thing -- the question about discretion, i think the response was not totally correct. discretion is only in response to evidence. evidence here is there are two primary components of this project that are changing. one is the governance structure. the other is the financing mechanism. in terms of the physical changes since the cnr was distributed, the physical changes have been reduction in maximum heights, slight reductions in the amount of parking, and more recently some amendments to some of the transit service. in terms of evidence of things

that would prompt recirculation, which is that there is not just new information, but new information that translates into a potential different context, it is hard to see how government structure, the financial structure, reduction of scale, reduction of parking, and additional transit service translates into any evidence of a new impact or a new mitigation measure, which are the essence of recirculation. supervisor mar: thank you for that explanation. i had a couple other questions, but i am appreciative of president hiu' -- chiu's amendments regarding the parking changes and whether one-to-one parking is needed. other supervisors have brought up concerns about that. i think the amendments are good. i also appreciate supervisor

kim's efforts to make sure we get up to 30% affordable housing and creative ways to ensure that if units are not built that the city has the ability to build affordable units as well. i appreciate those efforts. i also want to say that i appreciate the preservation of the wedding chapel and the efforts to preserve historic resources on the island. i did want to ask of the role of the historic preservation commission -- what would happen if there are future historic resources considered on the island? >> the way it stands on the island is there are trust properties, project subject to the state land trust, and properties that are not subject. it is like property that is subject to state land and trust requirements.

properties would be analyzed and reviewed by tida to insure they comply with that. most of the development is going to happen on non-trust property. historic resources are at the hangars and the administration building. they are on trust property. the review of that property and future design -- the design must conform with secretary of the interior standards. tihdi would make that determination. >> the planning department would make the determinations for non trust land. it would seem the historic commission would have some role

in that. >> under the new trust properties, as it is currently envisioned, the historic preservation commission would not have a formal role. we have followed the procedures that the port follows on trust property. certainly, the historic preservation commission could ask for a hearing, and i think we would be amenable to requiring -- supervisor mar: how would we involve the historic preservation commission to work with planning staff on issues related to historic resources on the island? >> currently, most of the

historic analysis concerning historic projects in san francisco is done by the planning department. the historic preservation commission is only involved in those instances where the charter spells out a specific involvement. right now on treasure island or your balbuena -- or yerba buena, there is no jurisdiction that would be triggered. we would rely on the planning department and their historic experts to analyze a project in terms of its compatibility with the secretary of interior's standards. certainly one thing that you could do in this case -- there is a provision in the design for development which is one of the documents that is part of the special use district, which is coming up later on your agenda.

you could certainly propose an amendment to that that rather than having tihdi rely on -- right now, they are qualified as a historic resource experts. you could qualify that the expert be from the planning department. they could then consult with the hpc if they decided to do that. this is more of a procedural matter in terms of who does this kind of review. it does not address or does not create any concerns about inadequacy, which is a matter that is before you right now. i think some of the earlier amendments which were discussed to some of the other documents were procedural in nature and do not raise questions about the adequacy of the eir. supervisor mar: i will talk to

you in a minute about how to have that advisory role of a historic preservation expert, but i will talk to you about that later. thank you, everyone, for the explanation. supervisor weiner: thank you. excuse me. i have a couple -- a question about transportation. one of the main attacks on the eir project generally by the appellants is their claim that the non-automobile transportation between the island and its san francisco and elsewhere is inadequate and the parking on the island will induce everyone to want to drive, and we will have bottlenecks and gridlocks. in their appeal, they talk about

how they see that the ferry and bus service has been reduced overtime and that there is a capacity limit for how many ferries can cross the bay. my experience with this project so far has been that the transportation is extremely robust. kahane -- but i would appreciate further elucidation on that particular issue. >> of victoria wise, planning department. there is in addition measure that provides an enhanced transit scenario for which there would be a muni bus 108, free ferry service, transit service to the east bay. there is sufficient transit provided under that mitigation measures to accommodate the projected transit rider ships

-- writer -- ridership for the project. there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate all the writers -- riders and even additional riders that would want to ride transit. supervisor weiner: thank you. one other question. i of course did not serve on the board from january 2005 until january 2009, when one of the appellants was president of the board of supervisors. but i understand that during that time the various projects including the eastern neighborhood and hunters point -- we followed a similar process to what we followed here in terms of the development agreement and the project as a whole being heard at committee

and then forwarded without recommendation before the board acted, or acted on the eir or heard the eir. if i could get clarification on that, whether a similar process was filed during the previous board president, as we are following here, in terms of that time. >> city attorney's office, through the president. i do not know if i could necessarily pinpoint the time when this happened in terms of the years, but it certainly is a regular practice of the board of supervisors to do this when there is an eir appeal. this certainly occurred recently with the parkmerced project. it