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 island citizen's advisory board. tuesday night the cab met and took action on a recommendation to the tihdi board on approval of the transactions and tihdi documents including the naval agreement, trust change, tihdi, transition housing rules and regulations and the habitat management community facility

sustainability and transportation plans. the vote at the end of the evening was 20 in favor of the recommendation and one against. of the three members who were not present at our meeting, two members wrote strong and heartfelt support letters of the plan. and in addition to that, the four residents of the islands who sit on our board also voted in favor of this recommendation. so we had a very exciting evening and we're all looking forward to continuing and to the next steps. thank you all so much. president cheng: thank you. nancy shanahan.

i would like to remind you that the froms -- there's no guarantee that the promised benefits will be delivered. according to press reports, the project sponsor, lennar corporation, has filed for bankruptcy in a similar base project citing economic pressures. media reports indicate they're financially stressed. the proposed project does not require financial guarantees that will ensure that the developer will actually be in a position to deliver the promised public benefits you're considering overriding tonight. there are other recent examples in san francisco such as the pier 30-32 cruise ship terminal where in spite of title. approvals by the city and enact. of special legislation, the public benefits were never realized. i'd also like to quickly point

out that the mitigation measures cited in the e.i.r. are inadequate to reduce the most significant feeckets traffic. not only are the mitigation measures not adequate to mitigate the most significant impacts listed as 40 to 42 in your yellow pages, the e.i.r. says that the mitigation measures as to increased bus and ferry service will depend on identifying funding, approvals by other agencies and additional environmental review. this is not acceptable under ceqa. this is hypocritical and misleading. [bell]

>> it's a great project and we hope you pass it and make it happen. thank you so much. president cheng: thank you. >> i would just like to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues and others and want to emphasize our concern about the exemption of the project from future regulation. we feel this is inappropriate strategy for securing the project and we leave it at that. thank you very much. president cheng: any additional

public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: ceqa asks us, have the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts of the project. i leave that hanging and i'm going to quote from livable cities, letter on the governance structure which is very important part to consider if we're going to the next number of approvals. "we have long objected to the fragmentation of planning in san francisco away from the planning department commission and towards various unaccountable bodies. the impending demise could bring the city under single planning code and administration with unified and coordinated planning vision. now that the treasure island supermarket proposed to be governed by the planning code, it is point thomas maintain a separate tihdi bureaucracy.

the existing waterfront design advisory committee providing design review of projects on trust land. i like to pose a challenge to the planning department. the planning commission has been in the trenches with this department on what i consider outstanding standards for what area plans are -- i like to mention eastern neighborhoods, - not very much under your own guidance and i say that with a reasonable degree of confidence.

you're missing a chance to really bring this project back to where it belongs. if we're looking and planning a new neighborhood for san francisco, this is your opportunity, and i will later on speak to why the d for d as it stands right now are not really workable for you. thank you. president cheng: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i'm in favor of the proposals before us and as we know, development agreements in particular move with the project are not with a particular sponsor, particular developer, and if these change, the obligation is still there both for all the public benefits and all the things that we're requiring and this is actually often advantageous because law changes may occur and they may occur that are disadvantageous to the general public but the development agreement takes priority, so -- and i think this

is a very good development agreement and we've read through it, we've heard what it has in it, and so i don't have any concerns about the fact that there could be another builder, another horizontal developmenter that may occur during the process of treasure island being built, not that that is necessarily going to happen and we've seen this in other projects certainly with mission bay and as we move forward with park merced, the same principles would apply. president cheng:commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: several things i have concerns about, first, on ceqa findings, i don't believe, given my position on the previous item that i can find that we can make the findings that are required by this particular motion. i'm particularly concerned with the number of significant

unavoidable impacts as well as significant unavoidable cumulative impacts and can't see how the commission can override thoses particular unavoidable impacts as presented in this document. so that's number one. number two, on the treasure island yerba buena area plan, it's really interesting to me that staff was able to put together an area plan within the space of about three weeks, i think. we had a redevelopment plan previously which i have here which i was reading until the change came along and then all of a sudden we have an area plan for us to consider. i think it's rather unprecedented that the

commission and staff has never given us a real presentation and the commission has not had informational workshops specifically on the area plan itself combined with the s.u.d., which are major items for the commission to be considering, especially since the s.u.d. is set up in such a way that it takes power away from the commission which i think is not a correct way to go. also, it would have been helpful, and i think it's because of the time element, it would have been extremely helpful for us to have some kind of matrix or some kind of comparison before us that showed what was in the old redevelopment plan and its various related documents that related to land use and what-not and the new area plan proposed

before us and that way we could have seen more clearly what the implications were for adoption at this point. on -- where are we? consistency 101 findings, there's a proposal and i don't know if this has been done, i don't think it has, for treasure island transportation management agency, staff, is that -- has the board of supervisors created that agency at this point? >> no, it has not. commissioner sugaya: it has not. i don't have mr. radullahovich's communications to us but it seems strange to me that we're creating yet another transportation authority. one of the problems i think in the bay area region-wide is that there are too many transportation authorities already and it's very difficult,

extremely difficult, to coordinate activities between the various agencies and it just seems to be bifurcated and to add another one specifically for theiled -- the island doesn't seem, for me, a good idea. in terms of housing under policy 1.9, is says approximately 5% of the market rate of the units would be sold or leased as inclusionary. it then goes on to say that 1249 housing units would be in stand-alone, affordable buildings. i'm not a housing expert and don't know the sociology behind the way people live in housing and how they feel about things but the commission has always thought that inclusionary in

buildings under the 15% is more desirable than having the developer pay in lieu fees and what-not and having it go to the mayor's office of housing which then goes to non-profit housing developers who build single buildings. and i understand that for certain populations it might be more desirable because there are then available services that they can take advantage of and what-not but perhaps for another type of affordable level, it would be more desirable to have them included in the market race units and 316 versus 1249 seems to be a huge discrepancy unless it has to do with some kind of funding mechanisms.

also on page 23 of the general plan consistency findings, it says, while the proposed project will increase traffic in san francisco and on the bay bridge, and while service of some transit lines would be affected, on balance, the proposed project will not impede muni transit service or overburden streets or neighborhood parking but if i remember right, aren't some of the unavoidable significant impacts among the streets and muni service that this is trying to say on balance is o.k. so, i can't support that, either. all right, in terms of planning

code amendments and i think one of the speakers mentioned it, under the redevelopment plan, i understand the role of the redevelopment agency having control over the redevelopment area. we've seen it all over. so we're quite familiar with that. with the changes that the city -- staff and the developer, city is proposing now to use infrastructure financing and to change the way the mechanism works and tihdi doesn't become a redevelopment agency, the proposal for the tida board to retain all land use decision making i think is not a good policy for the city and the comparison chart that was given to us by staff had the former way,