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 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