the e.i.r. admits that the units already in the pipeline anticipated to be developed total 25,000 units more than the city's chair of the 31,000 new unit regional housing needs allocation for this planning period 2007 to 2014 so they're already in excess without more area plans. the proposed increased capacity for the period up to 2014 is accepted and reducing it would reduce the impact of transit services needed to serve the residents of the new units, an impact which the e.i.r. admits is significant. another alternative suggested is that the city seek to achieve a number and distribution of units that would meet but not exceed the housing allocation by income category. the city has fallen shortest in its production of middle class housing, producing only 12% of its goal for that from 1999 to 2009 but producing 156% of the market rate goal, 80% of the very low and 52% of the low. the city refused to consider an alternative to reduce the excessive market rate housing being produced and produce mo

you'll see 42 unavoidable significant, unmitigateable impacts in the e.i.r. that is before you and that was before the world changed again and governor brown brought the whole concept of redevelopment financing into question and the public benefits to affordable house wrg reduced to 25% but that is a 17% reduction. the impacts have been increasing. and the public benefits have been eroding and the e.i.r. you have gotting and i have seen as of april 12, 41 pageses and it was brought to my attention yesterday, 96 pages in additional changes. i do not want to ask how many of you commissioners have read those documents but let me say it was not possible for me to read them. it is unlikely that you have read them. i cannot believe that you know what you're voting on. >> thank you. >> madam president. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comments? >> hello, commissioners. my name is vince courtney. 261 in san francisco. we have 3,000 men and women who need work. i'm here today to speak favor of this project. we understand that sometimes things

i would like to mention that the e.i.r. did not adequately provide for mitigation for the very tall buildings that are going to be built right in the middle of the bay. this is in the pacific flyway and the concerns of the sierra club and the a you had bonn society have not -- audobon authority. just as a way to step back from this a little bit, this is a huge project with very tall buildings built on an island that is essentially landfill. we are in an active earthquake zone. we have climate change. we have sea level rise. we have tsunami problems. we have seen all of this in great detail in jab in the last few weeks. and i think that with this 20-year buildout that you're talking about, i hope that you're not going to be sorry that you certified this e.i.r. because there are warning signs and there are people who are warning you that this is not a smart development. it has also expanded radically from the way it was first proposed. i just think that we should try think ahead to what might happen and what could happen on th

so, please, approve the e.i.r. let's move the project forward and support the rest of the measures that will be heard tonight. thank you. >> good evening. my name is becky hogue and i'm a resident of treasure island. i have been for almost eight years. i would encourage you to vote yes on the e.i.r. and the whole plan. i know people say they don't want to move down to treasure island but why not? we have a very good community on treasure island. we're safe. you're going to find crime anywhere you go. we look forward to the people moving down with us and being part of our community because we feel that both islands are a community. the housing transitional plan that is in place now is really

i'm here tonight to urge you to approve the e.i.r. and also to understand that my comments extend to the rest of the hearing on matters of approving the plan. this is a great opportunity for the city and county of san francisco to create a green transit-first community that will have over 400 units of housing for formerly homeless families and to give those families an opportunity to integrate into a safe, state-of-the-art community and break their cycle of homelessness and poverty. as we all know, many of our supported housing sites in san francisco are in disenfranchised and poor neighborhoods. this will be the first time that an emerging community will embrace individuals living in poverty and homelessness. this is an exciting opportunities as a stea and i urge you to support it. groups like community partnership have been working for over a decade in this partnership, in partnership with lennar and the treasure island developers. while i know there is controversy and there's always planning and these things move at a rate in san fr

i'm here in support over the e.i.r. on behalf of our board and the children and individuals that we have served through our programs. we are very proud to put 1,200 kids through our programs each year. most of which have not had experience on the waters in the past and have some sort of form of scholarship, but we can do better. the plans that we have been working on for the past 10 years with the treasure island community development, will give san francisco an excellent resource, an excellent place for our community and our citizens to go sailing and be able to have access to the bay. there are cities across the country that have fewer citizens, less desirable places to sail that have done a great job of getting them access to the water. we can do better. we will do better but the project needs to move forward in order to do that. the time is now. the america's cup is coming to san francisco. we're all very excited about we're all very excited about that, but let's make sure it is

as a direct result it would change from 2400 units discussed in the e.i.r. to. 2,000 units. it is envisioned to an area plan from a redevelopment plan. some are in response to public comments on march 5 public review draft. the maximum height limits and maximum parking ratios for commercial uses have also been reduced. as described in the memo, none of these present any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft e.i.r. consequently they do not trigger the need purr suents to ceqa. also you have been presenteded with a copy of the letter. none of these letters raise new environmental issues that have not already been addressed through drafert e.i.r. at this time i would like to address some issues that have been raised recently and in today's hearing. one issue was raised recently by a fire marshal regarding the proposed street layout, specifically with regard to public safety and emergency response. in march 2009, a comprehensive street network and grid design drawing was presented to the transportation advisory staff committee or tasc for the fir

rack in the back that has provisions to correct minor errors on the e.i.r. copies of the memo are also available. you have also received a memorandum data which describes certain changes which occurred following publication of the comments and responses including a change in the government's structure and documents under which it would be implemented. designed for development that have occurred since the march 5 2010 draft was circulated. this was sent to all interested parties and was made available on the planning commission websites. it is being replaced with a new proposed treasure island buena island area plan to be added to the san francisco general plan, which would no longer simply reference the plan but instead present policies to provide the foundation for land use and development and the special use district to be added to the planning code along with zoning amendments. the references designed for development and uses its standards and guidelines as a basis. the main financing mechanism also has been revised under redevelopment plans to one or mo

you know that the e.i.r. will be dealt with a challenge at the board, possible legal action, et cetera. so that track is taken care of. this one needs a lot more time and a lot more thought. and just to give you an example of what i'm talking about, i'll refer to what i raised in the e.i.r. discussion as an example of how staff is in way over their heads right now. they're not treading water. because of the governance and extensive financial changes in the project -- and here's an example. just on tsunami. less than two weeks ago in land use staff went forward, admitted that the e.i.r. and the plan do not account for 10-foot -- higher than 10 feet of a tsunami and they said point blank, very honestly, that's for emergency planning, not for design planning and this project, which is, as i said in the e.i.r. comments, was crazy. tonight, we hear from other members of your staff. they're saying, no, the e.i.r. covers all possible tsunami dangers so those are two conflicting statements but here's the worst one. af

in conclusion, we suggest it is accurate and adequate and the procedure for it, the final e.i.r. complies with the ceqa, the ceqa findings. this concludes my presentation. at this time, i would like to introduce michael, presenting our co-lead agency, the treasure island development authority, following michael's presentation, our team can respond to any questions that the commission or board members may have. thank you. >> the treasure island development authority board of directors. item three. public hearing closed. 3 a resolution certifying the report, the treasure island, buena island project. good evening presidents olague and cheng, commissioners in and directors. as rick mentioned, the item before you is a resolution to certify the final environmental impact report for the treasure island, buena island development project by adopting this resolution, you will be certifying that the final e.i.r. is accurate and adequate and that the procedures by which it was prepared are consistent with the ceqa guidelines and the city's code. i defer my remarks to rick cooper to and staff

>> i think think at that point, go through the e.i.r. process, maybe you'll find that they can put these on private property or underground. but assume they look at alternatives and there's still the above ground boxes. there would be specific mitigation measures that would be -- would apply to each one with of these boxes. they could be applied by staff and if appealed they would -- the board of appeals would need to do is make sure those mitigation measures would be applied fairly. you wouldn't have environmental review in the same way. supervisor mirkarimi: but that would be would have to be applied box by box according to that scenario. >> i don't know -- they could try to get them all approved at once, too. if you did an e.i.r., why couldn't they pick the locations and figure them out in one process? it was the city's choice how they set it up. at this point you're on the road to doing individual boxes without an overarching environmental review that takes a look at the big picture and what makes sense is mitigation and alternatives

the e.i.r. notes many of the environmental impacts are significant. the amount of allowable parking, one space for every residential unit plus many commercial is too high and the california -- >> please wrap up. >> california department of transportation is saying that the oakland bay bridge is already congested and others have as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am here to speak on behalf of the sierra club. the pattern should be designed to encourage shorter car trips and enhance economic viability of public transit. right 32.5% of greenhouse gas emissions in san francisco come from private car use. there are over 10,000 spaces for commercial and marina and hotel use on this island. that is a rate beyond one per unit. we recommend limiting it to just over 4,000, which is less than one per unit to decrease car traffic. right now the change plan because of the complications have changed the master developer to the treasure island l.l.c., which is a private company and the treasure island transportation management authority will allocate parking fee

threatening, not to mention threatening to make worse all of the problems already been mentioned in the e.i.r. in the last 4-5 hearings i watched staff was given four strategies, separate strategies for solving the affordable housing problem. this is being flown blind and it is in danger of hitting a wall. it is crucial that you knock this back to the fact, do not approve this until we get a handle on what is going on with all of this craziness over the last few weeks. >> thank you. >> you know as a lot of these environmental issues played out over the last several weeks and months we waited to see the resolution following a workforce development guarantee around a local hiring commitment to the project. the shift towards a different source of financing does not mean there is not much more of a good faith effort to connect local workers with this workforce. i understand it might be ongoing, developing. i would like to learn more as soon as possible. a lot of us were made to believe one of the things that would be done is to, you know, we are losing affordable housing and so many environmental

off ramp to the golden gate bridge. >> we think we overestimated the amount of automobile use in the e.i.r. we think we overestimated the impact to the bay bridge. given the ferry option that there will be more residents and visitors taking transits. but cal tran has been supportive of us moving forward and the mechanisms that we have put in place. >> another question that came up, i know a number of labor reps strongly supported the project. one question is on local hiring. i thought that there was an answer that the project would abide by the local hiring policies in the city. and joshua mentioned it is not in the d.a. but where is that language built in and how are we assuring we are abiding by the local hiring policies in the city? >> maybe i wasn't clear at the last hearing but there is a job program in commitments attached to the d.d.a. we are happy to sit down and walk through what the commitments are in that document. but it basically shows vertical and horizontal development within the project commits to a goal of 50% local hiring through the tidi job local program. local hire wil

also, substantial last-minute amendments not analyzed in the e.i.r. extended the scope of development outside plan areas and eliminated the requirement that density limits be maintained in r.h. 1 and 2 districts, and that would become new policy. these were unin because the element provided significantly more capacity than needed. these changes really exemplify the planning department's lack of good faith and candor. while taking abag that 17,000 infill units could be built in these expanded areas surf as a secondary unit, the department gave no explanation to the community for these changes. the last one is certainly intended to support secondary units in these areas. so we urge you to reject this proposal with its last-minute amendment and send it back to the planning commission with instructions to eliminate the amendments or subject them to full environmental review. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. did you sign up for both these items? >> i am from san francisco tomorrow. we have filed the appeal. if you will put on the overhead, you will not