this is shown on a page of the eir. further, we believe that the comments and responses is related to the historic resources and all of the other issues. after review, the appellant has not raised any issues that have not already been addressed in the eir, nor have we heard anything that alters our conclusions with respect to the eir findings. staff respectfully requests that the board of polled this and deny the repeal. this concludes my presentation, and i am available here with my staff members if you have any questions. president chiu: colleagues, any questions? supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: i have a question for the city attorney. we rejected a landmarking of a library, but decide that fact, some people look to pursue the national register, despite a stated objections from the mayor and the president of the board of supervisors to represents the district, and the state preservation commission did vote it forward, that nomination to the national park service, and can you explain what that means for this appe

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 dis

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

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 differe

department has become an eir factory. they produce eir's like hot cakes. some have been defective. i urge you to remember we are a unique city. a unique city in all of the world. we attract enormous numbers of tourists because we are not like shanghai, and but, -- shanghai, dubai, london, or new york. >> the evening, supervisors. i am howard. i want to bring up two issues that were not adequately covered. one is that for some reason, about $2.50 million per year that would normally go to me, that is funding, money from parking decks, commercial spots on the island, and all of the meter fees that might be collected on the island is going to stay with the developer essentially. this is money that muni needs. we know they have problems. they are looking to provide less service, and there is the transfer from the 108, and that should be theirs. but this problem gets worse, because the developer wants to use this money to subsidize a ferry for some of the higher- priced people, and the people using the very are not the ones ha

it suggests the eir should be considered not a project level eir because they're insufficient detailse 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

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 up

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 pla

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 occurred i believe with the candlestick/hunters point project. whether that dates back to a certain time, it is hard to say that because i cannot recollect all of those hearings. i will say that certainly the process we are following, and the approach with this particular project is very consistent with other projects and environmental impact reports we have done before, as well as projects with development agreements. going back to the mission bay project, the hunters point, the parkmerced project -- all of those

all of these issues have been adequately addressed in the final eir. in terms of land use, the final eir accurately reflects the condition of the project's site at the time the department commenced in burma to review, which is consistent with ceqa requirements. 701 lombard, where the library plans to blam

again, that is not clearly evaluated in the eir process. i'm going to hand in some of the issues into the record because it is pretty lengthy, and i, i had more minutes, and only two of the reasons were listed as project goals, and all three could be eliminated. under ceqa, a program is feasible if it achieves most of the objectives. one, the eir mentions a continuing -- continues building wall. this is not a well-known design issue. it is an opinion. one to argue that having the green state parcel -- green state -- greenscape parcel -- tow, the eir said it would not be visually supportive to the library. this is not a fundamental project objective and is it is a simple matter of design -- and is a simple matter of design. the eir represents an unwelcome massive block. obviously drawn to massive hi. thank you. president chiu: -- >> any others? seeing none, this hearing is closed. president chiuy? president chiu: i want to thank everyone for the many, many years of conversations we have had about the north beach library. regardless if you su

the board had already heard the appeal of the eir and upheld the eir ceqa document without public comment or board debate. the housing element was also approved with the 8-3 vote. the western sonoma community stabilization policy, urgent resolution sponsored by supervisor kim, that what urge this commission to incorporate policies and objectives from the stabilization policy into the western sonoma community plan when that item comes before you. the stabilization policy development developed by the task force would establish a metering of development, with the goal of achieving the desired balance of affordable housing and market. housing as well as an overall balance between housing. but the full board hearing, supervisor came introduced changes to the resolution so it no longer urges the commission to incorporate this stabilization policy -- supervisor kim introduced the changes, and asked them to incorporate the policies in the plan to ensure this balance happens. with those amendments, the board approved the resolution. also before the full board or the parking amendments to sonoma. t

they are last in the draft eir hundreds of times. it is no accident that the consultant got it wrong and he was taking his direction from the mayor's office of housing. this was an outside agency and this was acting as the project sponsor and control in the design. if you look at the exchange, they were controlling the design and there were contacted neighborhood planner directly. there are e-mails directly. they're controlling the public meeting and when it would be held. also the timing and content of the eir. those state from 2010. please take a look at those and read those carefully. booker t. held its grand opening six months before the eir was certified. that was exhibit four. they advocated for this project before it is certified. that is an e-mail sent out from a city agency urgent letters be sent to the planning commission and to the district supervisor are urging him to support a larger project or urging certification. this was using city resources and city e-mail was used to send those letters. the others involved devised

that says to me that a non-eir related hearing could be consolidated with an eir hearing, which of course makes sense in terms of efficiency and not requiring members of the public to come down 25 times to testify. it makes sense to consolidate things. i understand your interpretation, but i would come to a different conclusion. but it is worth talking about. supervisor campos: if i may, through the chair -- i see the point that supervisor weiner makes. what i am saying is i think we should clarify the language. i do not think that the interpretation that i think is actually more consistent with the language is necessarily the right interpretation, for purposes of public policy. but i do think that clarity would be helpful. supervisor elsbernd: we are spending way too much time talking about a pure red herring that i think has been thrown out here by one of the appellants, designed to get us to do what we are doing. let's focus on the big picture -- thousands of units. thousands of jobs. let's focus on the environmental impact of this project, not a red herring. president chiu: there is n

the eir and staff contend that this is the only way. more open space will be provided than the proposed project without losing the historic resources. this is not necessary to build in a triangle in under to provide additional public space. the triangle purchased to provide an open space part of the park counts as designated open space. this is a huge effect in the eir because all of the project alternatives treat this like it is a parking lot ignoring the open space designation. to make that work, you have got to revise that. >> i am a 55-year resident of north beach. i live one block from the library. i am here to urge you to reject the eir because its analysis of alternatives is deficient. the overwhelming deficiency is it is contrived treatment of project alternatives. as just explained, the designation of the triangle as open space purchased for open space and park use was not considered when looking at project alternatives at this renders it inadequate. the city may balance their perception of the benefits against impact in decidi

we will then turn to the eir portion as well as the public comment portion with regards to the eir. the appellate represents two different organizations, and we will give them up to 15 minutes to jointly to present, and they can choose how to break up their time. the appellate will be followed by a public comment by anyone who is opposed to any of the hearing items or believe that the eir should be rejected, and members of the public will have up to three minutes to provide their comment. if any of the palace wish to address the board of items other than this or the eir, they will also have three minutes during this portion. at that point, the planning department will have up to 15 minutes to defend the eir. we will then have supporters from any of the hearing items, including those who want to support the eir, and then at that time, it the public library or the recreation and park department what to say something specifically about the eir, if they can do so. we will finish the hearing with rebuttal, the five minutes divided as they see fit. i was just advised by the city attorney'

again, that is not clearly evaluated in the eir process.i'm going to hand in some of the issues into the record because it is pretty lengthy, and i, i had more minutes, and only two of the reasons were listed as project goals, and all three could be eliminated. under ceqa, a program is feasible if it achieves most of the objectives. one, the eir mentions a continuing -- continues building wall. this is not a well-known design issue. it is an opinion. one to argue that having the green state parcel -- green state -- gree

you have up to 10 minutes to address the final eir. >> thank you. i am representing a group of neighbors of this project, people who actually live within the 300 foot radius of the impacted area. homeowners, property owners, and residents. they have called themselves neighbors for fear planning and have called themselves the 800 presidio neighbors. our appeal is based on evidence that we have discovered as we have participate in the process for a number of years. in this instance, ceqa was never given an opportunity to work. the review of the impacts has been tainted from the beginning and they never have enough paternity to work properly for a review of the potential alternatives. not only alternative tadzhiks of different scope and size but alternatives as well. this defies the approval of the project as when the decision by the action of an agency to miss that to a definite course of action in regard to project. as with so much, this question has been debated back and forth, when does approval occur. when is the advocacy for the assistance to fav

i hope you approve the eir. if you approve is, we can go back to work and support our families. >> i have been a carpenter for 15 years. i have been out of work for about a year. i have a family at the home. a project like this would help us to provide for our families. this is why i am encouraging you to reject the appeal and approved that the guy are. thank you for listening -- ap prove the eir. thank you for listening. >> i want to thank you for a very good report purita. good discussions. it is time. let's do it. let's plan to seed. -- let's plant the seed. >> im a representative of carpenter's. i do not normally come to reminisce, but when i hear treasure island, i always think of good things. the first time i was about 10, and that was for the cub scouts. i had not gone back until just recently, and not knocking anything or anyone who lives out there or has any kind of job out there, but it is almost like a ghost town, and what i am hearing tonight, what this island of nevis, what san francisco needs, and

in the end, the eir was up held unanimously for treasure island. regarding the associated approval, supervisor mar introduced an amendment related to historic preservation. this one was passed 7-4, and like all the other actions, which were unanimous. the amendment was designed for development, and would require thattida -- that tida follow the interior secretary standards and consult with preservation experts at our department for any development involving historic resources. after the staff review, the department could bring the matter to the hpc is decided. chris lee, they have needed to consult with an expert but not necessarily within our department, and there was previously no mention of the hpc. all the other minor amendments were approved unanimously, and this amendment was considered separately from the other items and received a split vote due to the explicit codification of the secretary frontier status. supervisor wiener expressed concern that this will be first city ordinance with the standards you with that, all items were passed unan

i know the rules are all looser with them eir appeal. i understand the appeal of conditional use was filed, so is that different from what we are permitted to do as individual supervisors? >> the conditional use appeal pertains to the act of a specific project itself, whereas what is before the land use committee today is a special used district that would allow or be able to facilitate the project but does not go to the actual details of the project the way conditional use does. supervisor wiener: individual members may give opinions without -- >> yes. supervisor mar: after the 20% of the homeowners are residents are verified, that comes to the full board on june 28th, as the process? >> i'm not sure about the date. the clerk may be familiar with what the date might be. >> i believe the conditional use is on the 28 and the eir is on the 14th. supervisor mirkarimi: i think the president of the board is trying to line up right now. the technical amendments have been circulated, colleagues. , if you like these are coming from the city atto

we are the jobs solution in the eastern neighborhoods eir. they essentially said western soma will take care of it. this provides a balance of growth and residences. we might be better off leaving the existing zoning in place. it is not bad. but our support for this plan is predicated on acceptance of our planning principles, a stabilization policy that implements those principles. i ask that you forward this resolution to the full board of supervisors with a recommendation. i would be glad to answer any questions. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. i would love to have public comment first. but i really want to point out again -- when you look at the historical rates, even in the years when we sought a housing boom that has been unprecedented in the city -- in 2001, where we probably saw the lowest rates of affordability being built in western soma, we were still able to build 39.4% affordable. since that boom, we have been building an average of 40% of portability in that neighborhood. i want to point out the historical pattern in the ne

we are the jobs solution in the eastern neighborhoods eir. they essentially said western soma will take care of it. this provides a balance of growth and residences. we might be better off leaving the existing zoning in place. it is not bad. but our support for this plan is predicated

a consists of 84 pages in the draft eir of the figures in renderings. this is based on specific design and zoning guidelines. it is an unusual amount of detail. if the action is a read-azaan it must be prepared. that is not is a re-zone must be prepared. if not, that is -- this project description does that. the dimensions that it includes the designed for the developments. ththe proposed project establiss a zoning and design rules and guidelines to be applied to specific buildings. these are very specific. there is nothing unusual about doing a project specific analysis. the first district court of appeals issued the oakland heritage alliance. they have a similar approval. they will come forward. this approach has been recognized. there is an argument that the entitlements are too vague. there has been some mention of the height. this is a good example of why a contains project level analysis. there are buildings built up to the maximum height. that is what the visual analysis is based upon. it provides a rendering of what it will look like. where spec

president chiu: at this time, why don't we proceed to the eir? we will first hear from the appellant, we will hear public comment from anyone opposed to any of the hearing items or believe that it should be rejected, and to hear from planning followed by public comment of any supporters. at this time, hot and ask for representatives of the appellant? >> good afternoon. i have been a resident of the city and county of san francisco for 42 years. i have several questions regarding this plan, this revision from several different angles. why hasn't the public been informed of the costs of various changes of this plan? and coincidentally also to the library. if you're going to revamp the library and do it the way it was done, it is an unmitigated disaster of sorts. in terms of handling -- president chiu: are you representing the appellant? >> i represent the city and county of san francisco. president chiu: if you can just hang on for a second, the appellants have an opportunity to provide 15 minutes and we can hear from you after that. we're almost t

the eir acknowledges the project setting. centered on baker streets northeast of the site. it will not impair or impact the district. as far as preservation and planning commissions, it indicates adverse impacts for historic resources and is required to reduce, and a, or avoid these. it rejected as unfeasible because preserving the existing structures seem that it will be required. half as much housing could be produced. be available building areas are within the adjacent parking area and the rear yard behind the lot. there is a compliant alternative. the eir found that the physical effects of would be similar to those of the modified projects. associate of the demolition of the existing community center. regarding alternative locations, if the project sponsor does not control or have under shut of other sites, supervisors, the planning department's position is that it adequately and thoroughly analyze this whole issues -- analyzes all issues. we have not heard anything that alters the conclusion of the findings. the staff recommends that the board uphold the certification