candlestick/hunters point project. whether that dates back to a certain time, it is hard to say that because i cannot recollect all of those hearings. i will say that certainly the process we are following, and the approach with this particular project is very consistent with other projects and environmental impact reports we have done before, as well as projects with development agreements. going back to the mission bay project, the hunters point, the parkmerced project -- all of those were project-specific. we do program reports for things like eastern neighborhoods. the procedural steps we go through for some of these projects, whether it be mission

bay -- i think it was before other projects were in place. it is similar in terms of board of supervisors actions. supervisor weiner: yesterday at the land use committee, we also heard the booker t. washington project. we forwarded it without recommendation and will hear an eir appeal as well as consider the underlying project. that is on a similar track to this project. >> that is correct. we gave the exact same advice on that item yesterday. supervisor weiner: so the argument that is being made that you cannot consider anything about a project until you have finalized a decision on the eir -- that interpretation would have impacts on a lot of other projects that this board has considered and that this board

is currently considering. is that right? >> arguably, it would. but we believe the legal advice you have been given is correct. supervisor weiner: i do as well. [laughter] >> supervisor, if i could supplement those comments. i am wishing i had a long microphone like you. one is trinity plaza. the other is eastern neighborhoods. eastern neighborhoods, there were hearings at the board before the matter was acted on for approval or certification of the eir at land use. that was part of the shaping of where that plan ended up. trinity is a better example. supervisor daily -- daly certainly shaped how the project

ended up in terms of replacement housing. there are very specific relevant examples from that time. supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president. i do not want to belabor this issue. but i do want to go back to the interpretation that has been provided. i have to say i have a somewhat mixed view of this issue. i see the points from both sides. one question i do have is i do think it is important for us to know what the practice has been not only with respect to the current board but also with the prior boards. in terms of justifying something where there is a legal challenge, what the practice in

the past has been is an important consideration. i think in this case that legally there is a good argument. people may disagree with it, at least, that the practice is to interpret it the way it is being interpreted. in that sense, i do think the city attorney's office can justify what was said. it happened before. in the extent of how long that has happened, that is something we should know, at least. i understand the advice. and i think it can be defended legally. so i disagree with the appellants on that point. that said, i do think that going forward we need to consider how this is being interpreted. to me, the way that it is written in the code does suggest

that we are following the wrong interpretation. the reason i say that is that if you look at the way in which the code is written, at that subsection it basically references two things. it says that while the appeal is pending, until the eir is recertified, the city shall not carry out -- and then it says "or consider" -- the subject of the eir on appeal. to me, that language suggests there is a difference between carrying out approval and considering approval. the way the city attorney's office is interpreting the word consider -- it applies that definition only to the instance when the approval is actually carried out.

the text suggests there is a difference, that there are two possible scenarios. from my reading of this, the word consider is broader than just boating on something or carrying it out. -- voting on something or carrying it out. going forward, i think we should reconsider how we are approaching this issue. the dictionary definition of the word "consider" is broader than simply taking action, just looking online at the webster dictionaries. it talks about "give careful consideration to," "take into account," "think about carefully." i know no action was taken, but i imagine careful consideration did take place and weighing of

different factors did take place. i agree that legally there is support for the interpretation the city attorney has given. i do think that going forward we should reexamine the interpretation that is being defended. if we mean for the language to be interpreted in the way the city attorney is interpreting the language, maybe we should amend the language to clarify that, because i do not think the clarity is there to completely justify what is being said. in light of that, i do recognize the point that has been made by the appellants. but i also think that legally, to the extent there has been a practice that has been followed, that it could be defended in court. i think that where there is a

reasonable interpretation coupled with that practice, that legally would be appropriate to go forward, not withstanding the point that has been made. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: a quick follow-up, perhaps to the mayor's office. in the title lot and success of ordinances,-- title law and successive ordinances, does it work in the same way with redevelopment law that should there be significant changes to the project that they come back to tihdi, or to the board of supervisors? for example, if there is a unilateral decision to change from rental to home ownership or from home ownership to rental, in whatever capacity, who

renders the verdict? >> i will try to answer that. if i am wrong, i will ask the city attorney to step in. you are approving a contact -- a contract between tihdi and the developers. to the extent it is modified in a meaningful way, it would come back to the board of supervisors. for example, there is a requirement that 10% of the housing built is rental housing. if that change was to be made, that would have to come before the tihdi as well as the board of supervisors. supervisor mirkarimi: when the baby project came before us, we had to insert -- when the debut project came before us, -- when the bayview project came before us, we had to insert the

that -- insert that language. does it require an amendment? >> i do not believe it requires an amendment because tihdi acts as a city agency. it is not acting as a redevelopment agency. material modifications to contract would have to come back to the board for approval. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor weiner: i wanted to comment on supervisor campos's comment. i acknowledge that the word consider is a very broad word. but i think we were to take the appellant's interpretation of consider, putting aside this project for future projects, i think it is taking it to such an extreme that there could be questions about whether we could even think about a project or do anything.

i think it really is not realistic. when you have an eir before you, there is so much overlap with other aspects of the appeal. it does not say the board. it says the city. this that mean no city -- it just freezes every city department from considering anything? so the office of workforce development or the planning department could not think about it? if you take the word consider it literally, thinking about it is considering. i do not agree with that interpretation. in the next subsection, it says the board may consolidate or coordinate its hearing on the appeal with other hearings on the project. that says to me that a non-eir related hearing could be

consolidated with an eir hearing, which of course makes sense in terms of efficiency and not requiring members of the public to come down 25 times to testify. it makes sense to consolidate things. i understand your interpretation, but i would come to a different conclusion. but it is worth talking about. supervisor campos: if i may, through the chair -- i see the point that supervisor weiner makes. what i am saying is i think we should clarify the language. i do not think that the interpretation that i think is actually more consistent with the language is necessarily the right interpretation, for purposes of public policy. but i do think that clarity would be helpful.

supervisor elsbernd: we are spending way too much time talking about a pure red herring that i think has been thrown out here by one of the appellants, designed to get us to do what we are doing. let's focus on the big picture -- thousands of units. thousands of jobs. let's focus on the environmental impact of this project, not a red herring. president chiu: there is no one else on the roster. our stenographer has been going for some time without a break. we would like to give her a 10 minute break. at this time, i would like to recess. why don't we come back at 8:20 and start up again.

president chiu: welcome back to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. we are back to our special order regarding the treasure island

project. at this time, why don't we ask the party of interest, the project sponsor, to approach the podium for a presentation of no longer than 15 minutes. >> office of economic development. i want to talk, port two minutes -- for two minutes about tihdi. one point i wanted to make was about the finances of the project and the letter we received today. infrastructure financing districts would not increase property tax rates. they work much like redevelopment in taking the existing property tax in that increment and using it to issue bonds to purchase infrastructure. also, the economic viability of the project -- we