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. a think we have creative, innovative ways that we are quick to mitigate the traffic on to that island. this is very creative, very breakthrough social development. i would urge all of my fellow commissioners on this board and the planning commission to move forward with this and get it going. thank you. president cheng: i think among all the commissioners on our bodies, i have perhaps been involved second longest. it is amazing that we are at

this point tonight where we are able to go forward with the project. to me, as i listen to all the arguments this evening, i recognize as many of you have that this is not perfect. but i do echo commissioner elberling. in every issue we have faced in san francisco, we are balancing costs, balancing what is good and what is not as good. but i do feel that for me i look at what i come to a conclusion of triple bottom-line benefit. i look at the kind of sustainable model this is.

it is maybe not perfect in some eyes, but it is quite an outstanding project. i look at the economy not just for small businesses and jobs for every island resident, but for our city. we heard from residents of the island and everyone that has jobs on the island. but this is about our city. it is part of district 6. but it is not just about the island. it is about our city moving forward as an economic force in our region. i think the economic benefits are there. last, referring again back to what commissioner elberling talked about, i look at the community effort seen from people living on the island. it is so difficult for them to come to our meetings because of

where they live and work. but it still came to give input. that is amazing. i look at all these factors about the environment, the economy, and the community. for me, the balancing is there. i think we can move forward and erase some of the imperfections weekends -- we have seen. i would like to see this moving forward. commissioner antonini: i think the comment that most impressed me was the gentlemen at the gate, people coming into treasure island and telling them there is nothing there. in that context, we have to remember that if nothing gets built, there is no tax increment, whether it is redevelopment or the

infrastructure financing agency, and we are extremely fortunate -- nobody has pointed 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