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 appea

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 disp

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

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 support it, you of helped to make a better one. i also want to thank everyone, including the planning office and dpw. the very first meeting i held after being elected was about a north beach library, and we have, a long way, but from my perspective, i think we need to move forward. the north beach library is one of the most use sites in the city, and from my perspective, the current library has been inadequate, it picks -- in accessible, and seismically unsafe. we have been envious of you and all of the right -- ribbon cutting june and going to. we ha

the certification of the eir is limited to the accuracy and objective this of the final eir, includinglimited to the sufficiency of the final eir as an informational document. other than procedural issue is rated earlier -- raised earlier, of the issues raised, i would like to focus my remarks tonight on some of the main issues that have been raised in the letter and in tonight's hearing. first, they say that it has changed to a private/non-profit corporation. as described in detail in a response, the

the certification of the eir is limited to the accuracy and objective this of the final eir, includinglimited to the sufficiency of the final eir as an informational document. other than procedural issue is rated earlier -- raised earlier, of the issues raised, i would like to focus my remarks tonight on some of the main issues that have been raised in the letter and in tonight's hearing. first, they say that it has changed to a private/non-profit corporation. as described in detail in a response, the city created a nonprofit corporation and a public agency. in 1997, the board of supervisors passed a resolution authorizing the creation of a non-profit public benefit corporation as the treasure island develop authority to act as a single entity focused on the planning, we development, we construction, rehabilitation, we use, and conversion located on treasure and yerba buena island. for the welfare and common benefit of the residents of the city and county of san francisco. this was said to the budget and fiscal provisions of the city charter. the pellets also allege that fundamental ch

>> 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 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 differen

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 sup

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

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 plac

the draft eir was published february 9, 2011. the public hearing on the draft eir was held march 24, 2011. the project -- the public, timeframe closed march 28, and comments and responses document was closed on june 1, 2011. the planning department prepared the eir for this project because it has significant impact on the environment to the historic architectural resources and air quality. the commission will not be taking any action on this project, and this project would be before the port commission for subsequent project approval. the planning department request to adopt the motion before you, which certifies the content of the final eir are adequate and accurate and procedures to which the report was prepared comply with provisions of ceqa, the guidelines, and chapter 31 of the the ministry of code. this concludes my presentation on this matter. unless commissioners have any questions? president olague: thank you. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: we have a letter written by the historic preservation commission dated ma

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

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

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's

again, that is not clearly evaluated in the eir process. '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

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 a

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 th

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 cl

-- and then it says "or consider" -- the subject of the eir on appeal. to me, that language suggests there is a difference between carrying out approval and considering approval. the way the city attorney's office is interpreting the word consider -- it applies that definition only to the instance when the approval is actually carried out. the text suggests there is a difference, that there are two possible scenarios. from my reading of this, the word consider is broader than just boating on something or carrying it out. -- voting on something or carrying it out. going forward, i think we should reconsider how we are approaching this issue. the dictionary definition of the word "consider" is broader than simply taking action, just looking online at the webster dictionaries. it talks about "give careful consideration to," "take into account," "think about carefully." i know no action was taken, but i imagine careful consideration did take place and weighing of different factors did take place. i agree that legally there is support for the interpretation th

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 what the board of supervisors need to do and what we urge you to do it is the ninth -- is to deny the appeal, to approve the eir. let's make treasure island a treasure once again. let's put people back to work. let's provide them with jobs and security. we can get it done. thank you. >> i appear to be the last speaker, so i will be briefer than intended. i am here on beha

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 unani

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 favo

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 attor

as the eir demonstrates, the benefits clearly outweigh these. the project is consistent with the general plan. it turns a parking lot into a library and a street into a park. the only significant one -- the building, though not a landmark, has been treated as a resource. multiple options were investigated. clearly, the overriding benefits override the impact. this project closes one block of the street to increase the size and usable area of the playground and assure a safe and efficient passage of the public. creating a unified, usable, and a memorable place for the north beach community. thank you for your consideration. president chiu: let me ask if the project architect has something to say. it will come up in two seconds. >> my name is marcia. i am architect. the site is located at the heart of north beach across roads of the neighborhood. to clarify the location, the playground is located between lombard and greenwich, powell and mason streets, and the site also includes 701 lombard street along columbus avenue, which is currently a parkin

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