we forward it to the full board without recommendation. that is just a procedural matter to begin -- bring it before the full board today. >> any further questions on this issue? if not, why not receive -- proceed back to the appellants for 15 minutes of the presentation. >> thank you, president and members of the board. we are moving into the merits of phase. once again, wagner, on behalf of

the appellants in this case, the golden gate audubon society, while the equity, kennth master, we are here today to address the certification by the planning commission eir. our clients object to the planning committee certification on a variety of grounds. the fundamental cases for the objection presented today really goes to the heart of ceqa's basic purposes. this is set forth as the basic purposes of ceqa are to inform government decision makers and the public about the intentional significant environmental effect of proposed activities and

identify the ways that the environmental damage can be reduced, avoid significant damage to the environment by requiring changes to the projects by using mitigation measures and disclosing to the public the reasons why government agencies and prove the project in the manner that it chose if significant effects are involved. if the eir before you fails to satisfy the basic purposes of ceqa. >> the first issue that we raised on appeal is detailed in the appeal letter that has been presented to the board today. what is before the board for approval is not a project that was analyzed were disclosed in the eir. the eir by its own title is the

treasure island and yerba buena island redevelopment plan project. after the draft was circulated and even after responses to comments were submitted, on april 12 of 2011, the planning commission came forward with a memorandum notifying the planning commission that the project was no longer a redevelopment plan. instead, it was a special use district area plan not to be financed through the redevelopment law, but through the air infrastructure financing districts. none of these approvals were noticed in the eir that was circulated to the public. the changes to the project have resulted in a recommendation by staff to eliminate 400 units of

affordable housing for the project in order to make up for the projected shortfall in funding that would occur due to the city abandonment of the proposed redevelopment project. ceqa guidelines 15124 requires them to have a list of all of the permits and approvals that are being proposed. this eir does not have that. a ceqa guideline states that if the agency is proposing to use a eir for a prior project proposal but for a different project approval, the agency will start not with a memorandum at the end of the process and asking for it to be approved, it will instead start from the beginning of the ceqa process with an initial

study and recirculation of the eir for the projects of that the public can reconsider the project proposal and respond through ceqa's mandatory public comment period on a draft eir. with regards to changes that have been made, the financing system that has been proposed is potentially untested in the state of california. infrastructure financing districts have rarely been used. we submitted to the city and independent economists analysis from the san francisco state university. they have revealed -- review the new plan. there are serious concerns about the objections that have been made because of the way the infrastructure financing

district's work. also, because of the update to the financial analysis that has been done has failed to take into account the recent trends in property prices. down 40% since 2006. the staff memorandum that is now proposed has said that not only is what staff proposing to do one alternative when they come forward, but there are at least three other alternatives that have various trade-offs in terms of environmental impacts and social impacts. none of those alternatives or the staff troy's has been presented to the public in a recirculated eir. because the land-use map for the project has changed, the number of units have not changed, it is ok to certify the eir

development project. they approved a special use district area plan and infrastructure plan that does not involve any redevelopment plan. the relevant case on the issue, save our neighborhood says whether they question whether the projects are the same or different is a question of law is to be determined by the court under the totality of the circumstance. the appellants admit the changes that have been made in the totality of the circumstances that these projects are not the same and the eir must be recirculated. the project eir is not the project eir. this is cloaked in a program. this board is being announced to approve it.

in terms of our challenge on this question, staff has said that the choice of what kind of eir to prepare is up to the lead agency's discretion. fair enough. they do not dispute whether a lead agency could choose. what appellants do dispute is that the eir that has been presented as woefully inadequate at providing the level of detail that is required for a project level analysis. the documents that have been presented today represent only a general plan changes and other very high above all approvals of the conceptual design. the disposition and development agreement that is before the city at this time only calls for or approves a conceptual

level planned after the approval with four project level major subdivisions being brought forward. those are not described anywhere in the eir where their impacts are not analyze. all of the later of facts that filter out after those subdivisions that do not exist also have not been developed. the disposition and development agreement itself says that the conceptual plan could change. as a feature information comes forward. meaning that even the major phase is being proposed are not assured to be consistent with the conceptual level planning being presented today. all of these indications indicate that this is only a

program eir. it cannot be certified as a document. the difference is significant. this approves a project-level eir. no challenges within 830-day period. that eir would be resumed by a lot to resume a project level analysis. the effect of that is a much higher bar for the city to require environmental review of new information that may come forward about details. instead of having a tiered environment to review process, the only time it would be required is if ceqa's higher bar is presented. all of this is reflected in the

document that staff has been presented. all of the letters have been cemented by the fire department, san francisco municipal transit authority, the united states coast guard. they all demonstrate that none of them understand the project level of this redevelopment, the special use district project. another problem is that the product description they have been given is fundamentally an unstable. the fundamental legislation that allows the transfers of entitlement and trust from treasure island to yerba buena island are pursuant to legislative authorizations from the state legislature that expressly says that it expects development of the treasure island will move forward as a redevelopment plan. that redevelopment plan would use the authorities under redevelopment law to increase

the amount of affordable housing available. instead, what is happening now is with the changes that have been made, it is being proposed to reduce the amount of affordable housing that could be achieved. the legislature has not authorized a transfer of title and trust for a special use just not authorized. this has become fundamentally unfavorable because it will have to change in some way in order for any development to move forward. also, there is significant new information that was released after the draft eir that was prepared that has to be addressed in the circulated eir. the draft eir did not identify the fact above the traffic

safety system on yerb buena -- yerba buena may be blocked by construction on treasure island. traffic safety on the bay and homeland security. so the public can review and respond. instead, what has happened here is that there were changes to the project that will supposedly address the impact, and now the board is being asked to approve in violation of seacor. in fact, some of those very mitigation efforts are of great concern. those systems may be located on tops of buildings on treasure island. anybody familiar with the

circumstances of september 11, 2001, would understand the risks to public safety that are posed by putting such systems on top of a high-rise private building in the middle of san francisco bay. there is also a problem in terms of failure to disclose or adequately address the projects impacts. specifically, historic resources in this case in our letter. building 111 is on the national register of historic places. yet, the eir proposes to demolish the building. also, the uses of buildings one and three are at issue. one we raise these issues that the uses of buildings one and three have not been identified adequately, amazingly, they say do not worry about that.

when we find out what the uses are, we will review it. you cannot do that because you are being asked to approve this. this is a project level eir. this does not give us the information we need. the clipper cove project, the water side projects are going to move forward, but the other portion is now incorporated into the project, and finely -- thank you. president chiu: i will make a question to you. if you were just finish the point? >> the site has not been adequately described to an adequate level of detail, and that information, also the mitigation items do not insure

that people will not be exposed to toxins as the project site is developed. in other words, people may well be exposed to toxins before mitigation measures began that would make sure those toxins are addressed. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions for counsel? ok, why not move to public comment who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? if you could please, line up in the center aisle. if i could ask our clerk if we have any speaker cards. >> good evening. president chiu: before you contender, -- continue, mr. brooks, we have quite a few speaker cards, so i will read them.

[reading names] and i understand that a lot of people checked the wrong box, so i will sort them out. mr. brooks. >> a lot of people raise a lot of issues about very serious environmental problems with this eir, so i would just focused in on the one that i have raised most recently that really needs to be pried open, and that has to do with the danger of the japan like tsunami coming from alaska, which is four hours away, and hitting our coast, and a tsunami of that size would be at least 15 feet or higher of the california coast, and in the bay, it would create a very rapid type in surge of at least two feet or higher. when staff was repeatedly pressed in hearings about this,

and when an analyst was pressed about this, they admitted that a tsunami of that size has not been included in the design plan for this project. as a matter of fact, in the budget and finance committee, supervisor mirkarimi asked staff, i believe it was mr. -- what is the case with the tsunami danger, and he said that they have assessed the danger of a tsunami that large when they assess the project. what he did not say is that they assessed it, decided it was too rare to worry about, and the coastal engineer for the project even said that that kind of a tsunami is for emergency planning, not for design planning in this project, but so please drill down into that when

you talk to staff and get them to verify and revealed that a tsunami of that size is not covered. that is a major -- president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am -- and i am qualified to speak on the inadequacy of this eir. first of all, the seismic danger is comparable to similar areas, like the netherlands. the linkages between these boulders are, shall we say, significant, but more to the point, and you should have my correspondence from the state

and so forth indicating that the ownership of the island -- under the terms of the arkansas act, the state gave in stewardship to the state land that cannot be transferred or sold. to clarify this item, it means transferring titles back to the state. this is creating, in effect, a better road come, but i have gotten comments regarding this. i wanted to assure myself, if you would, that you actually received my correspondence. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker.

>> the meeting. my name is paul, and i am can it for the mayor of san francisco. my website is mayorcourrier .com. you are probably preaching your fiduciary responsibilities. the title on this property belongs to the state of california. the department of defense does not have the legal right to sell this land to anybody. they are supposed to clean the land and return it to the state of california in the condition that they seized it for the commissions of war in 1945 -- part may. world war ii. treasuring it is toxic.

hunter's point, the naval projects are radioactive. all of the people dealing with cancers caused by radiation in hunters point. the navy has not cleaned up that land, and we're looking at developing treasure island. these issues must be dealt with, and we have to make sure the united states government pays for the damage they created and then returns the property to the state of california. i opposed every one of these issues before the board. perce were it to government code 65, and i am going on record again to oppose all these proceedings because the title to the property is not the federal government's to sell.

president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors good evening. my name is tony. san francisco is an iconic city, which my family helped build in the 1700's. you are now poised to destroy one such icon, treasurer and. before you come it proposes to add scores of high-rises and will have an impact far beyond the island itself. it will be closed for further input and scrutiny for 20 years. it can run rampant. is this what the sentences will board of supervisors now represent an alameda of you represent a fitting history in any sense of what also add the island should be complete the survey for any contamination.

every end of the day, the navy is supposed to present a complete report with the toxic substance control. only after we have heard from that pioneer skeptical group should you consider the eir. moreover, the mediation is a panacea. it does not get near me dated to residential. given that the water table is so high, it is not clear the extent of the contamination. the navy is still probing sites not listed in eir. we went to review the navy clean-up team minutes. even though they are available to the public, they were not made available for 2010 and 2011. that is the nature of a cover- up. thank you. president chiu: thank you.

next speaker. >> good evening. my name is -- on the executive director of wild equities. i do want to reiterate all of the points made from the attorneys, but i also want to address another point which has not been addressed. we are a membership organization, and several of them actually live on yerba buena island. they have been treated unfairly. they have a wonderful community they have been building out there, and they have been made promises initially and about their ability to retain those times on the islands, and those promises have not been kept, and there is a lot of concern among members of the island about how they have been treated

throughout this process. in addition to the arguments made during the ceqa appeal, there is an opportunity to do right by this community. there is an opportunity to do this legally, but we also have a moral responsibility to consider the impacts on that community as we move forward. unless you can find some legal mandate to force us to do it, we will not. what i want to urge the board to consider it not only what is legally required but also what is the right thing to do for the members of this community. thank you. >> hello, my name is barbara. i am a resident of san francisco. i do not want to be repetitive to what other people have touched on. there needs to be more analysis of the eir. not enough consultation has been conducted, public comment, but analysis to biological and

aesthetic resources, and impacts need to thoroughly be analyzed. the transportation talent -- plan is unrealistic and should be analyzed, as well. there's not enough mitigation carry there are a lot of holes in this eir, and i just want to say as a former intern for the region near -- for the regional water board, i would actually consider this eir not to be sufficient and would not permit it. i ask that more time be taken to make sure all of the recent appropriately and koran the is circulated for review. also, the time frame that it takes for perper yet research, the eir, and review, there is no way this product is going to start in 2012. thank you.

>> good afternoon, or the evening, supervisors. my name is -- i am with the sierra club. we oppose this project in its current form, and the reason is there are too many cars. numerous agencies of weighed in on the eir and notes that the impact of the cars will be significant and unavoidable. in addition, the three members of the planning commission appointed by the board of supervisors, including commissioners moore and olague, have voted against this, and you should, too. there was a letter noting that the bay bridge already operates at capacity. a multiuser path that would

allow people to ride bicycles going to and from the island. a letter from the golden state -- golden gate says this will create unavoidable lining up. the sierra club believes there should be no more than one parking space for every two units and urge you to uphold this appeal. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is rebecca evans on behalf of the sierra club. i want to make it clear that the sierra club is not against development there. we have worked with the bikers on this board or work force and labor, including green jobs, so i do not want people to think that we are against this. land use