aspects of this document and have come out to be in support. i can also say that to the san francisco chamber of commerce. but most importantly, tihdi, a community organization, a nonprofit. all of the home life catholic charities have attended numerous meetings. i was told that official numbers could be from 250 to 500 at the special meetings. we can conclude that the process to this day has been a very great process. it has allowed san francisco residence to be part of the process. in fact, one of the speaker's earlier, my colleague at san

francisco tomorrow, mentioned that city staff has gone beyond the call of duty to make the document accessible. that is the respect of the staff and hints at my earlier statement, thanking them for going beyond the call of duty. the other issue i have has to do with this sea wall. at this point, i am going to call staff and please ask you to read, because i think this document is very significant for you to read to the record. can you find that document, please? i will give you mine. >> dear president chiu, i

understand the board will be certifying the final environmental impact report over the next few weeks. there is a land use committee set for an march 21, 2011. i am writing to convey our overall support for which the issue of sea level rise has been addressed on this project. we are proud to have been recognized as a leader on saleable rise policy in the bay area. we actively participated with other document -- with other organizations in drafting and california strategy, and are working on the day plan. the treasure island project has already earned praise from local, state, an international government agencies for its innovative approach to sea level rise in general sustainability measures. governor schwarzenegger

recognize the city's approach for its compliance and consistency with california's climate adaptation strategy. our staff has worked closely on the treasure island community development for the past four years on potential sea level rise impact and strategies to address this challenge. the staff ability to understand the complexity of this long-term issue has been impressive. the technical and engineering responses have been well thought out and innovative. the commitment to long-term strategies, including funding the strategies, will insure this regional party development area will be well-positioned to protect the community. the implementation of the proposed anticipatory design and adaptive management approach offers the promise of becoming an example of techniques for sea level rise protection for other

communities in the bay area and beyond. sincerely, will travis, executive director, the conservation and development. >> on the reduction -- commissioner richardson: on the reduction of the 400 units of housing, this matter was brought about by the uncertainty about governor brown's proposal to eliminate our redevelopment agency and is a result of that, to make sure this project is not delayed after 10 years in planning. the city has resulted to infrastructure district plans. to me, that is the only change. i want to ask the staff. the is the reduction of 400 units of housing have any tremendous impact on the infrastructure of this plan, as indicated in the eir document?

>> the short answer is no. commissioner richardson: thank you very much. in conclusion, i feel very confident that this is a good document. my recommendation is for approval. thank you. commissioner borden: i would like to review a few things. first, we may not all agree with the mitigation measures. this document goes through significant unavoidable impact and the mitigation measures taken. we may not agree on what those are. we may not think they go far enough, but amounted to highlight some areas. there was a reference to a 2006 plan, and the project description in the most recent plan has 8000 housing units.

so the project description -- people mentioned there was a discrepancy. but the project description in my document represents the product we are discussing. i do not see consistency there. in terms of the changes mentioned, all of the changes reduce the impact. there are less tall buildings and less parking spaces. that is a reduction in the impact. that is exactly what ceqa is trying to achieve. the whole purpose is to mitigate impacts. but i wanted to point out a few things. public resources code section 2109 2.1 -- -- 2109.21 says that significant new information is what determines whether an eir needs to be recirculated. in a supreme court decision related to laurel heights, it

says if we are caught buying significant new language, the legislature reaffirms the goal of meaningful public participation in the review process. it is also clear that by doing so the legislation -- was a slider did not intend to create endless revisions. we circulation was created to be an exception rather than the general rule. it is this issue of substantive evidence of significant new information. in the case of sector sensible planning versus the board of supervisors, the supreme court explicitly rejected the proposition that any new regulation triggers for circulation. an opposite statutory scheme does not require that a final e a i r -- eir the recirculated. moving on to the issue about the

changes to the financial structure of the document -- san franciscans versus the city and county of san francisco, the board of appeals said the public agency that bears the responsibility for making findings as to whether significant economic, legal, social, technological, or other measures -- it talk specifically about the financial aspects of the plan and the mitigation. another case, sierra club versus the county of napa, the court upheld the lead agency's reliance on rejecting infeasible findings. i bring this up because the issue of the change in the finance mechanism is a result of the fact that we development has gone away. the intent was to go that route.

but the project objectives -- the court upholds the objectives of the overall project, described in this document, it takes precedent in looking at what alternative you choose. it is a valid approach that is being put forth. those are just a few examples. i could go through more cases that are cited related to ceqa. but i think the issue we have that most people addressed related to the project and how the product has changed because of financing mechanisms -- that is not a ceqa issue. that is a product issue. it would make sense to spend our time focusing on it there. the document is filled with a lot of significant unavoidable impact. ultimately, as a public agency, we have to decide whether the overall benefits outweigh the significant environmental impacts in this document. vice president miguel: i am

happy that so many speakers talked to the legal ramifications of this, because i am not going to. there were a lot of changes from 2006 to 2011. in my mind, there are going to be changes before the project is finished. what i am dealing with right now is an eir. is it adequate? is it accurate? is it complete? does it cover any of the changes that have been brought forth? anything that comes to the planning commission of any size, particularly something of this size and this important -- if you take a look at the back of the paper material in front of president olague -- and that is not all of it, by the way, i

expect changes up to the last minute. we are going to get them. there is no question about it, whether it be basic changes because of sacramento not being able to make up its cumulative mind, or whether it is because of iraq's sheets -- errata sheets, we are going to get them, and we do. i compliment mr. cooper and the entire staff on what they have done. it was an amazing job under very unusual circumstances. this project is not perfect. it is probably never going to be perfect. it is good. it is excellent, as far as i am concerned. if we look for perfect, we will never get out of here this evening or any other. i do not believe that this eir has to be recirculated. i believe it is adequate, it is

accurate, and it is complete. commissioner elberling: [inaudible] about the seismic risk of the existing island -- i have been involved in this project from the very beginning. my greatest concern is that it has taken us 15 years to get to this point. if there is any emergency, the urgency is the existing seismic hazard of the island, and its exposure to eight -- its exposure to a tsunami in the bay. it is not as scary as the common to presented, but it is a serious matter. the longer we wait -- every year we wait to raise the berm around the island is one more year of that existing hazard to continue

for those that are there today. i think if there is any case of urgency for action, that is the case. i know what it has taken 15 years. it is the horrible amount of red tape, multiple agencies, and many issues. but i certainly do not want to wait another five years to address that matter. because it has not been described it, i would like to ask staff the tale of the contingency arrangements that were built into the project development agency now -- to go back from the 25% affordable housing if possible. we heard this at our commission meeting last week, but most of the public would be aware. could you do that? >> good evening. i am from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. we touched on this at both commissions. the 25% was brought upon us by

the state through the uncertainty around redevelopment. we have put in the document to ways to get back to the 30% of affordable housing. one is to get changes to the ifp legislation. if we get to a point where the increment equates to what we had under redevelopment, which is about 80% of the increment, we revert back and game back the affordable housing that was lost as part of this. we have provided two years in our agreement to be able to get changes to that legislation or make legislative changes, two legislative cycles. the other way is in essence to buy back the area. if we can get funding from general obligation bonds or what

not, we can buy back the parcels that we lost through this proposal. we have included those in the transaction documents to allow us to treat the 20 represents signed as a floor and get back close to 30%. >> how do we adjust -- commissioner elberling: how do we adjust the phasing? >> there are currently 24 sides outlined in the housing plan. that was reduced to 20 sites as a result of the change. the have put the sites that have to move from a portable to market place to give us time, so they are all in phase 2. [no audio]

>> this is not what is up on approval for our commission meeting. so that is simply not on the table. nor is eliminating any of the transportation mitigation funding, or any of the other possibilities that were lit up to us last week. we did not pursue any of those trade-offs. in general, also on the eir -- in the testimony tonight and letters i read, i did not see anybody challenge the analysis.

this obviously is the big issue for many. i actually did not see anybody who said in writing or in testimony this evening that somehow the impact were wrong, the analysis was wrong. when the standard before us is a question of whether the document is adequate and accurate, that would be the challenge that would give me concern. i heard people disagreeing on the merits, but given the identify impacts, that is a different discussion. that is not a vote on certification of the eir. that is a vote on the dda. it is a different topic, not this evening's vote. listening to the public, what really struck me were the many visions that are still in the project, despite the statements by some that the community benefits have been reduced. in fact, what is still there,

for any redevelopment project in the city -- this is the most ambitious project we ever have done for parks, open space, and wildlife habitat, including the wetlands on yerba buena. what is in there still is the most ambitious effort at social justice in the homeland -- in the homeless development program of tihdi not just in san francisco's redevelopment history, but the most ambitious effort for homeless programs in any project in the nation. i am not aware of anything comparable elsewhere. it is still in there. also, i see still the most ambitious effort in san francisco redevelopment at genuine community building with tihdi, the good neighbors, the

dedicated project-specific staff, all of which we do not have, for example, in mission bay. i can speak to you as a resident of mission bay north for five years. there is nothing like that there. but there is on treasure island. we have incorporated as much advanced technology for waste water treatment as can be done -- that has been done in san francisco to date. we have incorporated the most favorable relocation transition plan for existing residents of any project in city history. and of course we have the most ambitious, the most extensive transportation mitigation program of any development in san francisco. it is the first to use

congestion pricing. it is the first dedicated ferry system within the city. and the controls, the metering, and other medications to address the issue of impact -- there is nothing like this that has ever been attempted in the city before. this is far and away the most visionary and most community- responsive project -- redevelopment project the city has ever as many of you know, ie been in redevelopment for 32 years now. i think i can speak from some experience on that matter. if i thought that any developer, and the developer, could, in today's reality, build a project that is six fasten units, or a project with the reduced parking alternatives as

analyzed, i would support that. but i understand well the economics of development. and i understand the tremendous cost of all these visions and benefits we have put into this project. it cannot be delivered today. if it was of interest, i would be glad to talk about rates of return and feasibility, if people think there is reason to go into more depth there. but basically, the developer has been whittled down to the bare minimum that they can build with. that is why i think for all these reasons it is really important to see there is a theoretical perfect project, but as a speaker said earlier today, you cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. it is time to move forward. it is time to begin to build. we will improve on our

successes in the next 10 or 20 years as this is developed. that is more than just a hope. it has some teeth. let me hand out the particular amendments i will offer in our subsequent meeting about requiring periodic monitoring of transportation impacts on the island, and updates of the transportation plan after 4000, 6000, and 8000 units have been permitted, so our successors can actually measure the impact, see what has happened with transportation, and make adjustments with the participation of future residents. we are talking about their everyday lives. i am going to offer that. regarding advice to future residents -- the developer must bring to our commission a

program for each phase so that we can make sure they have the resources they need for their everyday life without driving to san francisco proper. if you could hand these out, they are for consideration in our next meeting, but i wanted the planning commissioners to see what we're doing. president olague: commissioner dunlop? commissioner dunlop: in the last year, we have held 40 public meetings, which is a stunning amount of openness and comment. certainly, the plan has had some

changes. these changes really were in response to public comments and making it a much better project and much more public. i am the president of the island in question. -- i am a resident of the island in question. when i first heard about the redevelopment plans, i truly love the beauty of the island and i loved the stunning views. a sort of was thinking, "i hope that nothing happens." clearly, there are plenty of people that think that way. as i got to know the plan more, it is a wonderful plan that will keep the environmental -- the environment intact, and even add to it, and add to the unique properties of the island, having lots of green areas and

wetlands, and having places for football and for soccer and for rugby. it is a wonderful place that is really going to become even more wonderful. and it is going to be both destination-friendly and friendly to the people who continue to live there, which i will certainly be one. some of the concerns that have been raised are certainly about traffic, about car and car ownership. for people who live on the island right now, they probably have three cars to every unit, surprisingly enough. they are stunned to hear there is joy to be just one car per unit. it is an island. people really feel the need to have a vehicle to get out and get away. but with the ferry system and the improved transit system, those concerns will be addressed

and have been addressed, although it will be a challenge to give up some of those cars. i think you have to look at both sides of this argument. personally, i might prefer 0.5 to one unit. but i think this is a good compromise. the whole eir and the whole project has been worked with lots of public input. it is not going to be everything i want, but i think it is going to be a major plan that will be leading the future of development. this is exactly what we need at this time, something that is dense yet also very achievable. we do not need more building out in dublin. we need more controlled growth here. there was a question about the

changes to the ifd versus redevelopment, the infrastructure funding districts. one plus is that it genuinely gives the planning department much more control. so there should be some happiness over on that side of the aisle. [laughter] so i am very excited about the plan in general. certainly, there are aspects that could be examined further regarding the eir. i would hope that my colleagues and my colleagues across the aisle also support this plan. vice president samaha: well, this debate tonight really made me realize just how much i love san francisco. i love the help the debate. i think a lot of what we have heard tonight in opposition to the current eir -- i think it

comes from a good place and from people wanting it to be perfect. but i disagree. i have a lot of respect for those who did come forward and say that we need to recirculate this document, but i have not heard anything that makes me want to do that. i think it covers all of the areas we've heard before. some of the new impacts have been minimal. some have reduced the impact on the eir. the world is always changing. san francisco is changing. treasure island will change some more. we can never put something into place and keep recirculate and because of changes. the economy changed. there were changes under the economy. it moved from redevelopment to the ifd.

we have heard there is no impact on the development because of that change. we do not have the luxury of more delays. we have heard from labor, from all kinds of folks here tonight, that they need jobs. we have been doing this process for 12 years. we can't keep revisiting and having more hearings. the have been hundreds of meetings, hearings. staff has worked thousands of hours on this. the developers have spent $35 million to date. enough is enough. we need to start moving forward. we need to build a new community. i think this is a great document. it covers all that we have heard before and then some. we have heard from a lot of great people here tonight, from the bicycle coalition, who are my friends. i am a cyclist