all of these new sustainable ideas can be used for power as well. that's really what i have. thanks. >> thanks. just quickly, we want to give you an overview of how these improvements and the ones you have heard in the prior meetings get paid for. this structure is similar to what you have seen in other product areas, where we have to insure the project is feasible and the public benefits we are proposing get billed and paid for. the little difference here is that negotiate an agreement with the navy, where we are making a payment to the navy for the island. that is about $55 million and allows the navy to protest pit in some of the upside.

but the sources of funds are the typical once in every developed project. we have seen it in mission bay and the shipyard. there is an additional tax on land and improvement above the 1% typical property tax. there is a tax increment that bonn does, leveraged with private capital from our development partner. the way the numbers work out is that about a third comes from each source, about $500 million from the private capital and $414 million from tax increments. here gives you a shot of what those costs are, the largest being the infrastructure cost,

3144 affordable and transition housing, and property acquisition costs from the navy. we also did analysis to show what the fiscal impact to the city would be. obviously, there have to be city services, police, and fire. how do they get paid for? is there enough tax revenue generated from the island to pay for those additional city services? we hired an independent contractor consultant to pick a look at that analysis. this is what they show. at build up, there are revenues primarily from property-tax is, about $28 million in costs.

we see a positive impact in buildup, but we see positive impact throughout the project. that is our presentation for tonight. we are happy to answer questions. that is the end of the presentation. president olague: i guess i will open it up for public comment on the first part of this agenda. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, before you now is the request to approve draft resolutions to initiate amendments to the general plan, the zoning code, and the zoning map, but and republican hold a future don't hearing with the transportation island development board, currently proposed for april 7.

there are three proposed resolutions. the first is proposed amendments to the general plan and the design for a development document. there is a resolution for proposed amendments to the planning code and the zoning maps, which would establish a new treasure island/yerba buena special use district, as well as a new height and bulk district. these new districts would refer to the redevelopment plan as the regulatory framework governing the project. i would remind you that the resolutions before you are for the initiation, as an announcement that the commission will hold a future hearing to consider the draft resolutions.

initiating does not predetermined judgment on the substance of the amendments. planning department stuff wreckage -- recommends you adopt the draft resolutions and initiate amendments to the planning code, zoning maps, and general plan that are contained in the draft ordinances, and the you instruct the department to provide notice of the public hearing for consideration of these items come on or after april 7. thank you. staff is available to answer questions, should you have them. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? commissioner fong: i have a couple questions related to financing. i guess the first one -- is

there a cap on the tif funding? i would like evaluation. the deeper question -- is that funding went to happen in different phases, or it is all of it going to be called upon at the beginning? are their faces were they are calling 1/3, 1/3, 1/3? >> the developer will have to put in the early money. it will not be available until there is value created on the island. most of the value will come from construction and practical improvements. it tends to come later in the project. the cap on tif is basically qualified project spots, which we define as the infrastructure, parks, transportation costs, etc..

commissioner moore: i want to start with a question. and as we are initiating, there will be a number of changes in part of the document. i know that different groups are asking different phases and you sit here and take notes. what is going to be approved? there still needs to be a lot of work done in order for those questions to be properly answered or incorporated. is that correct? >> that is correct. if we can process them, we can bring them back on the 17th. >> isn't it so the draft eia r -- eir makes -- >> on april 7, we will have the

certification of the eir and the actions in front of you to consider, as like he would do on any public project. commissioner moore: in some areas, i had prepared to talk about the sustainable -- sustainability plan, with the caveat that i believe there are a number of issues that would challenge assumptions in the sustainability plan. some people will be concerned. this is a 20 year project. we are taking a big leap of faith together. i see some gaps in the sustainability plan which i will not talk about, but i will direct some questions and so you can be prepared to answer these questions if they are taken up. i am very enthused about the quality of the open space plan.

you have heard a complement you about that for a long time. the specific question i have is are you concerned that at this moment the sustainability plan i have crossed referenced suggests ground-mount solar panels, when solar panels should not be using up your open space. have you commented on that item? can you do that? >> i will be prepared to comment on that when we come back. i would say there is a lot of open space out there. there has been in our ongoing thinking, ever since the beginning, enough to accommodate everything that has been a good idea. if it turns out that there is a high value for a certain type of use, i would like to be optimistic that can be accommodated in the open space plan. of course, there is a limit. do i want 300 acres of solar

panels? commissioner moore: sometimes when solar is planned, it comes in certain sizes in order to create the energy or investment efficiency which generates a certain amount of electricity equal to what you need to do. i have observed that in europe, where it is quite compare -- where it is quite popular. at some point, you might want to look at some practicable -- prototypical sizing and how the public will look at open space which is promised, without understanding solar panels might occupy some of that space. there is a sizing thing. i think one can create some prototypes, including understanding of what type of energy could be generated. moving right along, the agricultural park. how much will be used for a

community garden? is it an agricultural or commercial farm? will people who live there have the ability to participate in community gardens, something we talked at length about last week? we see it in other parts of the city, like fort mason, etc. >> we are programming it so there is a certain amount of community gardens, but that amount is to be determined. that would partly depend on partnerships that the ball for the other parts of the echo truck parked, meaning what kind of farmers get involved. is it a few farmers, or is it many farmers working on a small scale back we have had some informational meetings with people that are in the agricultural industry and urban farmers. this is a feasible proposition to have this form and to have it be productive, and not just be a demonstration, but be a real farm that is producing food. we would like to try to

accomplish that. at the same time, we were very happy to have some community gardens bases as well. commissioner moore: i think there is a good symbiosis between the two. you learn by larger example and practice on your own there is an interactive learning tool. what remediation are we being promised? are we able to go organic? what will the navy do? what will be the fall of -- follow up? will it be done in elevated planters? >> that will be information that comes once the navy considers their process. from what we know now, there is no information that indicates

there is contamination in the location where the urban form has been placed. there is more testing to be done. >> will you have a backup strategy? i think that is an extremely important point. are you referring to it as something which is immediately there? i hope you will find enough of a bridge to have an answer. we will have to dig in around a little bit. the next question i would ask is, talking about cleanup, will it be possible to construct a storm water treatment what land backspin that could lead to contamination. can we do that? >> we believe yes.

commissioner moore: i have to ask these questions. you use the word -- perhaps it is too detailed and i can get to that on the sustainability plan. i will let it go. i wanted to ask about infrastructure. i think the plan is very strong. a long time ago, treadwell and rollo were the engineers who recommended a parameter -- a perimeter dike. has that been abandoned to the compaction phil? >> the perimeter will be stabilized using the vibrocompaction. through the original plan, there

was mixing cement because the entire interior area was to be left and improved. under this scenario, we are proposing to improve the entire perimeter to provide a stable platform that does not rely on the integrity whatsoever. we need to raise the island to accommodate sea level rise, which had not been considered in the old days. once the introduction of new film comes into the equation, it would induce a new round of settlement of the bay mud. it essentially forces us to address the compression of the material we need. in addition to that, to treat the liquefaction, for all the low-rise buildings and projects and streets, and things that are not on the foundations, we felt it was important to stabilize the interior. the perimeter will be improved

to contain any edge. commissioner moore: i think it is a blessing in disguise that we do have to think about sea level rise. you can be staring against the big wall and cannot figure out where the river is. i think this is a great solution. i am really glad that you have come up with that idea. i appreciate it. thank you. mr. mcgill? -- commissioner miguel? vice president miguel: i think

we will be hearing more answers as we go forward. the plan we have now is a great improvement over the original concepts we saw, going back many years. i look forward to the eir, and to additional information as we go forward. however, at this time i am satisfied sufficiently to move initiation of items 14 b, c, and d. commissioner sugaya: second. commissioner antonini: i was very happy to have a presentation by some of the parties involved here regarding the laws governing the entire development. oftentimes, people will ask questions about the layout and why certain things are done

certain ways. it was interesting to find out that while the federal government owns treasure island, they can do what they want. much of it comes under the tidelands trust fund, and is subject to administration by the state of california. the uses have to be in conformity. many of these are maritime uses, to use a generalized term which may not be entirely accurate, correct me if i am wrong, or uses that support those uses. for example, a hotel would support people there to enjoy some maritime uses. i guess my question is that probably we are seeing some distribution of different areas, but it could be subject to some degree of change as time went forward, i would expect, especially among the different open spaces.

once you have got the open space wetlands, and improved various and, you have the recreational areas, the agricultural area, and the improved park space. these are all open spaces, but of different forms. a different distribution of these is something that could be subject to some degree of change. >> this is subject to the tidelands trust rules and the business rules. we basically have an agreement with the state land commission which swaps some of the trust restrictions off treasure island and yerba buena island to

allow the housing to be built. but the parks and open space hotels, things that bring people to the island and the waterfront, are the allowable uses. the port is all subject to public trust. that is why some of the development there is restricted on what they can do. the fields are always a tricky aspect. because it is open space and you would think it would be etruscan plant use -- a trust-compliant use, that is not part of the trust. that had to be carved out of the trust, but give us flexibility to use in different ways. commissioner antonini: i understand there are other different parameters. wherever possible, we can

maximize the uses that would be a different -- >> there are not enough fields in the city. it has been a great use on treasure island. i think the 40 acres of open space will be a great draw on trigger island. it would be possible they could be expanded with more discussion from state lands, but this is kind of based on their interpretation of the rules. commissioner antonini: the agricultural area formats still has to be decided. orchard seem to be very useful, because you have a windbreak and they yield fruit and might do well there. it depends. that needs to be determined

relative on what we could do well and what is practical. commissioner sugaya: thank you. starting small and getting a little bigger, i assume there is no flex -- that there is enough flecks that if there was a desire to do a community garden, that could take place. we are not rigid enough to say that are part is a certain type of design. is that correct? then in terms of tax increment financing -- pardon my ignorance on the subject. i know what it is. in relationship to this project and others where redevelopment is involved, does that run as long as the redevelopment

agency still has jurisdiction over the project? can it end earlier? or is this $500 million figure. the minimum of the bill back -- or is this $500 million figure the minimum of the build back? >> it is our anticipation that you need the full life of the project to be 35 years. commissioner sugaya: this question is based on something that came up earlier today when supervisor mirakimi was talking about the a2 project. for that area, there was no exit plan, for lack of a better term.

those are a little bit different. it is not planned out like this one is. in the next 20 years, i would hope that the city is looking at -- obviously, we will be looking at how the progress is going and monitor in the effort. hopefully, it will be successful. but is there -- what with the redevelopment time be relative to the project? would it be until 2013? >> a 35-year project life. i think we had not seen the end of a redevelopment project area before. so we have learned a lot in the western addition and also yerba buena. if they come to an end, and the land use jurisdiction transfers back to the city, it has been good to have that process

happening so we can account for it in our planning. but the same thing is that the jurisdiction was moved from a single purpose redevelopment agency back to the city. commissioner sugaya: i am saying it would be good before 2030 happened that to the monitoring and the city keeping tabs on what is going on that they can project forward what will happen with the idea that redevelopment actually goes away. i think it was a concern of the supervisor that there was no real transition plan, if you want to call it that, when redevelopment exited. >> in one example, the csd bonds, the additional tax -- we have put a life of those of 100 years. it redevelopment goes away, and

those revenues keep coming in, that would be available for open space and the sea level rise. there is funding coming in from the development. >> i think part of what supervisor mirkarimi referred to today was the zoning controls and those issues. my sense from talking to him, and i have talked to him a couple of times about this, is that he felt there needed to be kind of a new plan, or at least a revised plan. maybe it is as simple as having a plan that says at the 20 year mark there is a checking to see

what should happen when the plan expires, just so we can sort of set the stage, saying that at year 35 certain changes should happen if certain conditions exist or something. you know what i mean? so that there is a trigger in there somehow. commissioner sugaya: i think that was his concern, that handing over to the city there was nothing redevelopment was doing ahead of time to anticipate uses or changes in uses that have taken place, and that kind of thing. a think the director is correct. commissioner moore: just for an extra comment on the redevelopment of the past, it was basically major clearance projects which terminated light without a really great 4-looking idea -- a great forward-looking

idea for what it should be like. there were few large-scale free- market ideas which were established, contrary to what the treasure island plan is trying to do. treasure island is more like grayfield redevelopment. it is basically having a huge site with an incredible setting and doing something which you normally do not even have in the typical redevelopment, a really unique opportunity. commissioner borden: i think it is a great open space plan, and everything we have seen has been released from. i guess i have one question, piggybacking on the point made this morning. it is about the in congruency sometimes in plan areas instead of the planning code. can you talk about if what we are doing with this plan is

compatible with the general planning code? i would imagine not. >> the idea is that the controlling document would be part of the planning code. david, go ahead. >> you captured it. at the end of redevelopment, the zoning goes back to whatever the basic zoning is, whatever the basic zoning was at the time the plan was adopted. changes that occur over time to those -- there are some transitional changes. that is kind of how it operates. commissioner borden: say something like a soft serve restaurant, the planning definitions in the regular code -- the could still apply to the planning cutbacks >> yes. unless there were transition plans that said