this out yet -- but because we are city and county, we are able to recover fifty seven cents, as much as sixty-seven cents, whereas other cities can only recover about thirty-five cents. it redevelopment has historically recovered eighty cents of tax increment funding. i think that is something that is very beneficial, not just for this project but for possible development in san francisco in the future, because we may be able to do something other counties cannot do because they are not a city or county. also there was some mention about the oversight. i think commissioner dunlap said we have more oversight now because the planning commission will have a say in the treasure island development authority will have a lot of say as to what is going on there, as opposed to the situation when

the redevelopment agency did. i think there may be more oversight. i am very supportive of this project, and i am going to make a motion to certify. president olague: commissioner moore, did you have any more comments? commissioner moore: yes i do. the question about substantive changes. staff has so much to do today that i wanted to put to the record, looking through three documents simultaneously, it is not easy to spot the changes. i think it is a bold move out in the middle of controversy the developer is suggesting lowering the height in four buildings. that is perhaps a different

impact as to whether or not it mitigates the impact. the tower height of the most prominent building, block c-1, has been proposed to be lowered to 450 feet, a net reduction of 200 feet. but in addition, now this particular c-1 block will be shared with the historic naval chapel. the original plans had proposed abolishing the historic building. the tower height in the three other buildings it is proposed to be lowered from 450 to 350 feet. this is showing the most recent version in the april 5 plan. that reductions in historic building preservation are just a

reasonable response to the many particular plants. the fact they constitute a major change looking at the impact of the eir. in addition, the newly proposed retention of the historic navy chapel has impact on tall buildings in the immediate vicinity of the historic resources and have not been considered tand the impact as previously described is not accurate. i'd like to mention a couple other things. while there are reductions in height, there are subtle increases in the proposed building heights in other locations of the the revised plan. if you look closely enough in the most recent plan, page 169, it maximizes the envelope. at the height difference in a number of places and it has not been at re-evaluated.

there is a building increase from the previous 125 feet. i refer to the maximum height plan. this has not been analyzed. and its effect on historic resources is not complete. it's it's right next to historic buildings three. -- it sits right next to a historic building three. they also indicate proposed height changes from 40 feet to now 52 feet, as shown in the maximum height plan of april, 2011. a height increase, one-story increase, while it does not sound significant, it constitutes a notable change in overall massing and form. together with a minor reduction

in buildings block c-11, c-12, and c-13 from 70 feet to 65 feet, in the new the revised draft, i suggest these changes collectively constitute enough changes to reconsider the current eir and find the document in front of us in complete for approval -- incomplete for approval. there is one major issue out like to point out, and i think this is more than significant. in february of this year, the new height control plan was added to the maximum height control plan. this first appeared in the revised draft in february, and then again was published a few days ago in april, and it shows up on page 178. i do not believe the public has

had the opportunity to read through all of these recently added documents as i chose to do. but i am saying here, this new edition chose a plan that is not on the previously, it is a controlled plan, requiring significantly lower building heights for all of the buildings for the purpose of preventing interference with the marine tracking radar used by the u.s. coast guard vessels called v.t.c. this appears to have been initiated by the u.s. coast guard and its concerns are addressed directly by them in there, the letter -- in their comment letter. the maximum proposed heights allow for significantly taller buildings than those suggested.

the text explains these newly added control plans as inconclusive and intentionally vague and it does not explain the true implications. the heights require in consult the station planned to the uninformed i seems to pose a restriction and challenges by the coast guard to the maximum height plan, which has not been mentioned anywhere in the product description, has never been publicly discussed, and has never been as fully with it -- and has never been evaluated. and it has never been add value waited -- it has never been evaluated and proposed tight envelope. the guidelines prepared to govern building and design have rudimentary rarely -- have rudimentarily address this

without a guiding principles of how to deal with treasure island should we be stuck with before heights in a number of critical locations. i'd like to suggest the product description fails to mention the heights requiring consultation plan, fails to comment and explain it, and it fails to evaluate any potential impact of what is described. the deir is there for incomplete and not accurate. >> madam president, there is a motion on the floor and a second. if commissioners, before you is a motion to certify the final environmental impact report. on that motion -- [roll call vote]

commissioners, that motion passed on a vote of 4-3, with commissioners moore, sugaya, and olague voting against the certification. 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 project. 2b is request for amendments to the general plan, including amendments to the commerce and industry element, community facilities element, housing element, recreation and open space element, transportation element, urban design element, land use index along with other minor general plan map amendments and adoption of the

treasure island yerba buena island area plan. 2c is establishing findings of the consistency with the general plan and the city of san francisco and section 101.1 and city planning code and treasure island/yerba buena island. 2d is amendments to the san francisco planning code by amending section 102.5 and 201 to include the treasure island yerba buena island special use district and amending section 105 relating to the height and bulk limits for treasure island and yerba buena island -- and amending table 270 to recognize this district. item 2e is question for approval for the treasure island yerba buena island design for development document. 2f is request for amendments to

the san francisco zoning maps by adding new sectional ma zn14 to show the zoning designations of treasure island and yerba buena island, adding new sectional map ht14 to establish the height and bulk district for treasure island and yerba buena island, adding new sectional use map su14 to establish thek treasure island yerba buena island special use district. 2g, making office allocation findings pursuant to the planning code sections 320-325 for the prioritization of 100,000 square feet of office space for the treasure island yerba buena island project. and 2h is the request for approval of a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and treasure island yerba buena island llc for certain real property, 1939-001 and 1939-002

all together consisting of approximately 450 acres for a term of 30 years. thank you. the staff presentations? >> rich ellis from the economic offs on and workforce development. we planned to do a presentation at that point but given the lengthy detail you went into, i wanted to highlight that is part of the resolution adopting environmental findings, a statement of overriding considerations that lay out the public benefits associated with the treasure island project so i wanted to highlight those for you here. as you know, the project creates a new san francisco neighborhood with over 8,000 -- up to 8,000 homes, up to 450,000 square foot

of retail and historic use as well as 300 acres, 2/3 of the island developed to public open space. the infrastructure associated with the project, the developer will be purchasing the presents or the city will be purchasing the property, reimbursed by the developer from the navy. all new utility infrastructure including streets, sewers, water lines at a cost of $179 million. the geotechnical improvements we heard of, strengthening of the land as well as the sea level rise protections, increasing the height of the island up to five feet around the island. the transportation program includes both incentives to use transit as well as ways to discourage car use. there's congestion pricing on the bridge as well as a requirement that pre-paid

transit vouchers be purchased by every home on the island. there's a capital investment of $145 million including a new ferry terminal, new streets and road ways and bike path, new buses and shuttles as well as a $30 million transit operating subsidy to be used for a.c. transit and weta to subsidize the ferry service. 2/3 of the land dedicated to open space at a cost of $124 million for the improvements and o.& m. costs for the open space paid out of the project. affordable housing, we discussed 2,000 new units of affordable housing, and units dedicating to tihdi use for homeless as well as inclusion units. again, we have the opportunity to increase the number of units

over time if we're able to get additional resources from the state or on the local level. community facilities will be renovated public school as well as new police and fire station and up to 33,000 square feet of additional community space including space for daycare, senior care, as well as just general community space. there's a land pad created for the treasure island sailing center and environmental education center and retenth of existing facilities including the chapel of the existing gym and dlansy street life learning academy. finally, there's numerous jobs created between 2000 and 3,000 construction jobs annually as well as 2,000 permanent jobs on the island at build-out, i'll turn it over to josh sletski to talk about the various items

before you. >> good evening. i'm going to take you through the eight actions before you this evening that are necessary to enable the treasure island/yerba buena island development project. the first action is the adoption of sequafindings and statement overriding considerations which are necessary in order to take action implementing the project including mitigation monitoring and reporting program. action two is improvements to the general plan. you initiated amendments of the general plan at your march 3 hearing, including adoption of a new treasure island yerba buena island plan into the general plan and adoption of series of maps throughout the plan to incorporate references as the islands do not appear on the key maps in the general plan. the new area plan contains high level objectives and policies calling for the development of islands for mixed use neighborhoods and the proposed project would be consistent with

these policies. action 3 is adoption of the general plan and planning code related to all city actions related to the project. for almost any action you and other entities take with regards to the approval of the proposed development project, these actions need to be found consistent with the general plan and planning code. the approvals before you are structured to make these findings in a single resolution so all other actions refer back to this resolution which finds the actions consistent with the general plan as amended. the next three items on the calendar are amendments to the planning code text, approval of the design for development and approval of the zoning map amendments. at the same hearing in which you initiated general plan amendments, you also initiated zoning amendments. special use district and height and bulk districts and as previously presented to you, the s.u.d. contains the land use and core controls for the island including establishing new zoning districts for the islands, designating permanent

land use, maximum parking ratios and establishing permit review and procedure for individual building projects. it refers to the building design document above you for approval as the supplementary set of quantitive and qualitative design guidelines. no other part of the planning code will be relevant to regulation on the islands. the design for development document which in addition to rereflecting the controls and the special use district contains a more comprehensive set of building standards and design guidelines for vertical development. the d for d also lays out design for the island and streets and open developments but these are referred to as horr zontle development under tihdi. key aspects of the special use

districts and d for d including height limits and bulk are problematic elements that would be vested to the developer in the development agreement before you so any future proposed changes to the s.u.d. or d for d that would affect these aspects of the project would require with the developer. special use district, new zoning districts and height and bulk districts in the zoning maps. the next action is resolution to assign priority for up to 100,000 gross square feet of office space on treasure island pursuant to the office use program. granting such approval would provide priority for any such office space ahead of other office projects citywide in any particular year except for other previous such priority allocations that have been adopted granted to mission bay and hunters' point as well as behind the transbay transit tower. you are not precluding the

requirement that individual office projects come before you for final design approval once permits for such buildings are submitted. the findings before you stipulate that furniture planning code section d1 up to 121 square feet of office development promotes the public welfare convenience and necessity. the final action before you is approval of the proposed development agreement pursuant to chapter 56 of the city's administrative code between the developer, dicd and city and county of san francisco. the development agreement establishes the rights being vested to the developer to develop the project with its current proposed program of land use building form and parking for the term of the development agreement and freezes in place current development fees for 20 years with certain exceptions. the actions before you today would constitute the commission's primary oversight over the billion dollar out of the project. in doing so, you would be approving the zone program for all the vertical development on the islands.

would have jurisdiction -- to ensure compliance with standards. approving projects pursuant to procedures of special use district and individual buildings that meet all of the guidelines would not come before you for specific individual building approval though all buildings over 70 feet in height would come to the commission for a public hearing so that the commission and the public can advise the planning director on their design. also importantly any project seeking major exceptions from any of the standards or needing conditional use standards, any building that seeks to deviate in a notable way would need to come to the commission for individual discretionary approval action. you did receive an errata package in the past week and the actions before you are on the documents as reflected through incorporation of those errata. if you wish, rich ilis can walk you through the errata.

as a housekeeping note as is the case with many other major plans we work at that have many numerous documents and motions before you, staff requests that the commission affirmatively grant staff the authority to correct any typographical or grammatical errors in the motions we may find as we finalize them. with that, the planning department recommends approval of each of these actions. i or other staff would be happy to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> open it up to general public comment. we have speaker cards but we will ask people to stand in one line and to come up to speak. the speaker cards were confusing because it was hard to determine what item people wanted to speak to. so, and i would ask you to

speak, you know, as loud as you can into the mic for the benefit of the court reporter who is trying to pick up what people are saying. it was difficult before. >>. thank you. >> good evening, eric brooks representing san francisco green party and local grass roots organization, our city. i want to expand on what i said during the e.i.r. comments to get to the core problem you're facing with the votes you have right now. 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. after that land use hearing a couple of days later, mr. tineoff and an engineer from b.k.f. engineers, todd adair, here's the conversation -- one of the commissioners, torres, is

this area vulnerable to potential tsunami? todd adair, no, it is protected by the golden golden gate. we can get into a lot of details about tsunamis. commissioner torres, so you're taking care of that? yes. so somebody's lying and staff needs to -- mr. tanoff needs to explain to you why he didn't interfere with that comment. president cheng: anything you would like to submit in email is welcome. >> sherry williams, treasure island homeless development initiative, i've indicated support for the project but neglected to hand in all the letters from the member organizations supporting the project in full. so if i could, i would like to submit them to you now. thank you. president cheng: thank you.

>> very hard to address eight items in two minutes to permit a city the size of santa cruz that started out as a village and is now almost 20,000-person city relative to overriding considerations, commissioners, from both commissions, i direct you to your s document volume 1. you will need to find that significant impacts, the 10,000 to the 30x to the 47, to aesthetic impacts, to air quality impacts, noise impacts, are overridden by the benefits of this project as they've been reduced. relative to governance, i would submit to you that this is unprecedented in san francisco history. you are creating a virtually separate government with its own entitlement ability that is virtually unaccountable to the planning commission. you are turning the general plan

on its head and finally as my time is running down, as to the development agreement, it usurps the power of the executive and legislative branches of government. i hope you are all aware that even if the board of supervisors and mayor pass new fees or new laws, they will not affect treasure island for 20 years. this is without precedent in the city and county of san francisco's history. cheng is there -- president cheng: any additional public comment at this time? >> good evening. president cheng: if you can wait one moment for ms. avery to set the clock. >> thank you. good evening, chairs, commissioners, directors, for the record, karen noel pierce, chairman of the treasure island/yerba buena