the eir did not address these padilla, and the eir did not envision the entire city being swept with a broad stroke of this plan. the inclusion is citywide, regional, and there are stakeholders, in addition. its specific the talks about neighborhood support. that was removed. community was defined as citywide and regional and beyond. and the inclusion of the transit four-store draft also fully impacts all of our neighborhoods in that the transit corridor it covers our neighborhood. so the entire neighborhood is involved. it no blankets the entire city. and finally, the eir -- the policies -- president shoot: -- chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a past president of the women's league. the they are was done on draft two, not three, and it is inadequate. there will be see the impact on the following neighborhoods. the neighborhood association. the civic association, the jordon park improvement association, lake shore acres " laurel heights improvement association san francisco, and this includes the presidio heights association of neighbors sunset park there is the website hudgens

we urge the eir ratification. send it back to planning for revisions since it in adequately analyzes the impact it fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. directs planning to provide for only that amount of increase capacity needs to satisfy from 2007 to 2014, which is all that is needed for these grants. this document, this interation is anti-middle class. nothing that you see before you today was discussed at that time. neither i nor any organization to which i belong was a member of the appellants group before the 2004 housing element, eir. if this goes on, if this goes past today, i do not think anyone in this room. do not let it go to litigation. we urge you, in order to avoid years of litigation, we urge you to reverse this document and the appeal. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> thank you. hello. i am karen. i am the code dr. kapoor of some design guidelines that were adopted previously. i am here to support the appeal, and the only point i would like to make is pretty obvious, and

what we prepared was a problematic eir with the housing element policies. not in a specific development projects. what we looked at was a change in policies, first from the 1990 elements and second from the 1990 to 2009 housing element in order to provide the environmental review for adoption of the 2009 housing element. what the eir concluded was that the housing elements could contribute to a significant cumulative impact in the 2025 horizon year and also found there could be noise impact that could be mitigated. all other impacts were found through analysis to be less significant. the appeal letter received by the clerk of the board was followed by a supplement and then another yesterday. their responses to the submittal were delivered to board members this morning. at this point, i will turn this over to jessica. there is also the department response. good evening. >> i am with the planning department. the appeal response and the second appeal response. there is the potential for new significant impacts. 3, the amount of the available water supply. four

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 requi

not every demolition to a contributor triggers and eir. -- an eir. if there were not environmental impacts, it would just be focused on historic impact. but the things we looked at in reviewing a potential impact for research in a district would be this overall size of the district. why is the district significant? what is the impact of removing that contributor to the overall resource, which is the larger district? if you have a district made up of hundreds of buildings, the loss of one contributor may not be a significant impact that required an eir. if you had a small collection of 10 buildings and they were all fairly unique, that could pose a fairly large impact. supervisor weiner: i know this could vary widely, but in terms of the cost of an eir, and i am not talking about a big project, but somebody making a change to a major renovation -- if an eir is required, do you have a sense for what the range of costs would be? i understand this is an estimate. >> it varies greatly depending on the size of the project. supervisor weiner: at the low end

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 re

they brushed it off in two sentences in the eir. they said "the reduced land use alternative would have a lower total number of units but this would reflect a reduced number of units and was determined not to meet the goals. >> does anyone have any follow- up questions? unless there are any questions any of the parties, this hearing has been held and closed. thank you very much. colleagues, items 13-15 are in the hands of the board. >> a motion to move forward item number 13 and table 14 and 15. >> a motion to approve the final eir which involves tabling items 14 and 15. is there a second? any discussion? if we can take a vote on that item. >> aye. >> aye.; >> aye. >> aye. >> aye >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> colleagues, the eir has been finally certified. if we can now go to our adoption without committee reference calendar. >> item 16-21 are being considered for immediate adoption without reference. they will be acted upon by a single vote. >> would anyone like to sever any of these items? if we can take

i asked you to vote to support an eir on this project. president chiu: sir, you spoke before. >> i was answering one specific question. the forfeit my -- president chiu: my apologies. you did not. >> kurt hoslinger. i hope you will support a full eir. there is not enough information. expert testimony will come forward, rather than relying on at&t, which pretty obviously in my mind, with the issue about private property -- they simply say we cannot do it. don't give us any hurdles. it is our city too. we can do better. i hope someone will pursue this with the planning department. i have the original application. this was filed on september 30, 2010. the document is erroneous. it is incomplete. i looked in the board packet, all 100 pages on line, and could not find this document. it is called the environmental the vibration application. i want to point out part 3, question 5. -- the environmental application. would the project result in ground disturbance of 1000 square feet or more? the box as checked sesno. if you do the math on the entir

i am very qualified to make a statement on the eir. what i have found is a consistency throughout the evaluation and the application of the rules and regulation policies set aside by ceqa. i think the documents meet those criteria. i have also narrowed my interest. i looked at the transportation. caltrans, a state organization, has stood in support of this the guy are. they did mention mitigation issues there would like to have. the organization actually states that we should make sure during the implementation on the bay bridge to make sure there are adequate signs so that motorists approaching the ramparts can follow those guidelines. i want to ask the staff. it is this the same types of thing that you find on the bay bridge currently, where motorists are required to stop and on the light proceed? anyone that does not abide by those rules would be in violation of traffic laws. is that right? >> that is correct. commissioner richardson: here we are again, to mitigate what we know has already worked in the bay area. so to me that is no

i do not believe that this eir has to be recirculated. i believe it is adequate, it is accurate, and it is complete. commissioner elberling: [inaudible] about the seismic risk of the existing island -- i have been involved in this project from the very beginning. my greatest concern is that it has taken us 15 years to get to this point. if there is any emergency, the urgency is the existing seismic hazard of the island, and its exposure to eight -- its exposure to a tsunami in the bay. it is not as scary as the common to presented, but it is a serious matter. the longer we wait -- every year we wait to raise the berm around the island is one more year of that existing hazard to continue for those that are there today. i think if there is any case of urgency for action, that is the case. i know what it has taken 15 years. it is the horrible amount of red tape, multiple agencies, and many issues. but i certainly do not want to wait another five years to address that matter. because it has not been described it, i would like to ask staff the

to do an eir. if the work you're doing on a historic resource does not interfere with the historic character of the building -- it is only if there is an impact. supervisor weiner: in terms of when the staff determines whether an eir is needed -- >> our environmental review officer would determine what the level of review was. supervisor weiner: cannot be appealed to anybody? >> my understanding is it is not. supervisor weiner: has planning been doing any work or given any thoughts about how to -- i think for a lot of people, doing historic preservation, reviewing whether it is an eir or additional historic review to determine whether it is a resource. the lot of people are ok with that. there is a sense that the costs can be high, and the amount of time it takes can be high. the you have any thoughts about how to make that process less expensive to people who are trying to do projects? i have heard of projects where because of the need to do some sort of review, it can tip the project from canceli

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.

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 th

that is not a vote on certification of the eir. that is a vote on the dda. it is a different topic, not this evening's vote. listening to the public, what really struck me were the many visions that are still in the project, despite the statements by some that the community benefits have been reduced. in fact, what is still there, for any redevelopment project in the city -- this is the most ambitious project we ever have done for parks, open space, and wildlife habitat, including the wetlands on yerba buena. what is in there still is the most ambitious effort at social justice in the homeland -- in the homeless development program of tihdi not just in san francisco's redevelopment history, but the most ambitious effort for homeless programs in any project in the nation. i am not aware of anything comparable elsewhere. it is still in there. also, i see still the most ambitious effort in san francisco redevelopment at genuine community building with tihdi, the good neighbors, the dedicated project-specific staff, all of which we do not have, for example, in m

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 pro

you never have an actual eir, but just the decision to impose one. supervisor cohen: my question still relates to serve a process. i would like you to articulate to me so that i can have a better understanding as to how vendors or a person new contract with -- how you go about selecting them. >> i cannot give you much more information other than we adhere to the city hiring program. i am not sure if the director -- >> as with any contract, which would be looking at the qualifications to meet requirements of the state in filling out the historic survey. the state has very specific requirements and survey forms that require detailed information about the history of the area and architectural character. our selection of consultants is based on their expertise in those areas. supervisor cohen: when you make the selections of people, has there ever been a case where a surveyor or member of staff has had to recused themselves because they may have had a relationship with the company or a consultant that has been hired to survey? >> not that i am aware of.

only draft two was assessed by the eir. last-minute changes were introduced between draft two and three that were not removed and vetted. a lawsuit was filed, and even after that, they continue to go around the process. this is a good example of why there is such a lack of public trust. you could change this by doing the right thing and sending this back to the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i m device president of the balboa homeowners association, and a delegate to the west of twin peaks central council. i would like to second the comments made by the lady from st. francis with, the lady -- the neighborhood just sitting north of balboa terrace. balboa terrace is a single- family residential neighborhood detached homes primarily built in the 1920's. it also has significant green's base. our ccnr's did not allow other than single-family housing, but it is unclear whether the housing element would override the ccnr's. balboa terrace is adjacent to several busy traffic corridors. we oppose the housing el

the eir, after roughly five years, was finally published. we made a final outreach to get the word out that this would be before the planning commission. we advertised a series to give the community the opportunity to raise concerns. we also posted an open house to give an orientation for what was proposed. what is now before this, let me first go over the general plan amendment. this is just a complete revision of the executive parking area plant, and as you know, area plans provide policy for remarks for a specific area, said in an overall total or vision, not necessarily laying out specific requirements. the plan was established as part of another plan as a major means as a campus like office park. again, generally in similar in its orientation, characterized by expanded parking. this was mainly anchored in office and commercial development. the proposal now is to completely rewrite the area plan, it is changing its designation to mixed use residential and to address other issues and to assure a strong sense of place. let me give you a co

we need to pull this back, send it out for another eir.the time that process gets done, maybe they can verify they have a better funding from the state. without that guarantee, this thing is a catastrophe waiting to happen if we let it go crazy. i will close with this, just to give you an example of the pressure this change is putting on staff and how it is changing the way they and the developers present things at hearings. at the sfpuc, commissioner torres asked the lead environmental engineer, "is this area vulnerable to a potential tsunami?" the engineer responded with the same fiction that mr. ohen just put out, that we all know is not true. he responded know. he just said no. he said it is protected by the golden gate. any of you that know about tsunami is no that is absolutely false. a recently discovered that the cascaida subduction zone could create a tsunami that is tens of meters in height. chairperson mar: the last part i have is --card i have is chris meany. >> i am with treasure island community development. we are obviously

. -- the eir. the sole right. that is fine. -- it is all right. it is fine. >> the public hearing is close. item 18, the executive park amended the area and the development project and final environmental impact report. the public comments for the draft ended in 2010. goo>> good afternoon. the item before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report for the proposed executive park and the universal parergon development projects. a copy of the draft cert motion is before you. it was published on october 13, 2010. the public comments close on november 29, 2010. the public comments were distributed on april 21, 2011. the evaluations found that implementation of the project would result in a project- specific and cumulative impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level of transportation and air quality. should the commission shoes to approve the project, that motion will follow. i would like to suggest the commission adopt the resolution before you, that the procedures comply with secret guidelines and chapt

planning addressed all the claims in the eir. on the basis of this work, the department successfully maintained that the eir was accurate, adequate, and complete. the board listened to all parties. that concludes my report. there were a couple of items introduced, not introductions of new legislation, but rather legislation you are familiar with. this is legislation for the presidio, at 800 presidio avenue, sponsored by farrell, mar, and mirkarimi, as well as the miscellaneous technical amendments such as the clean code legislation and you heard last summer. as you know, the historic preservation commission has continue their hearings on the item, and until you guys reconcile the differences between the portion containing articles 10 and 11 and the historic resource amendment, staff will remove all the historic preservation alamance. the proposal before the board is everything you recommended outside that, which we have been asked to vote on. that concludes my report. commissioner antonini: thank you for the report. on the ceqa a

all subject to the eir being certified. then it would be back before you on april 26 for the adoption of the ceqa findings, the mitigation and monitoring development plan, the approval of the ica, and by attachment, the infrastructure plan. in the final board of supervisors approval is anticipated for early june. with that, i would open it up to any discussion. president vietor: commissioner courtney? commissioner courtney: if it is not too much trouble, could you repeat the jobs data? what classification would you consider them to be -- whether they are construction jobs or retail jobs or just general maintenance jobs? >> sure. the first component would be construction jobs through the buildup of the development program over 20 years, and that is anticipated to be 2000 annual jobs in construction trades, various trades, starting first with infrastructure, and in typical trades we would think of as building trades, we would think of as it relates to building development. i do not have specific answers on the full-time jobs

in terms of the at&t legal position on this, if we require an eir, and we refuse to certify it when it comes back to us, which would normally mean the death of a project on a local level, can at&t go ahead and do this anyway under state law? >> i think you're asking me for a legal opinion, and i think i am wise enough to defer this to my lawyer. >> hi, amanda. the question is, i think, goes to a big picture issue about ministerial as opposed to discretionary. there was some discussion previously that we would not have to have something if we did not apply for a permit. we can debate whether these permits are discretionary. we did debate that. we decided to move forward and go through this process. we under state law, under 79 01, we have the right to occupy the right of way. under 79 01 0.1 have the right to regulate the manner in which we occupy the right of way so we, do not incommode the right of way, so, yes, you can regulate and where our utilities go, but you cannot prohibit us from having access. the state has decided that the right of way is free utilities should place their st

-- the only version vetted by the eir, been adopted. anything would be possible, and it could be totally inconsistent with what was agreed to. only 30 words have been changed. think of what would happen if 30 or even three words were changed in the u.s. constitution. you could end up with dictatorship instead of democracy. 30 words have power. it is very important that they be reviewed and approved by a reasonable and open process. send this back to the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am not in support of the housing element has was approved by the planning commission. the last minute changes create a different housing element than was explained to the public, and the public was allowed to comment. do i have everyone's attention? on the overhead here, i have a typical street scene. this is a single family home on the left side. in the middle of the photograph is a vacant lot. under the third revision of the housing element is a developer, and i will show you what can be done there. we do not need any height additi