economic consultants to review that. >> people watched that. >> on behalf of my partners, i would like to say thank you to all of the people that have helped us. the staff, the various commissions and boards. they have met for 11 years. target poor manners -- our good partners at tihda. we are very proud of this. with the firm, we will respond

to the allegations on the behalf. >> what i am a lawyer. there are a couple of issues i would like to respond to. there has been a fair amount of dialogue whether this is a project or it dialogue eir. to talk about whether it is a program is to change the subject. does it contain enough information to make the requirements? he talked about the description of the project. it is detailed. a consists of 84 pages in the draft eir of the figures in renderings. this is based on specific design and zoning guidelines. it is an unusual amount of

detail. if the action is a read-azaan it must be prepared. that is not is a re-zone must be prepared. if not, that is -- this project description does that. the dimensions that it includes the designed for the developments. ththe proposed project establiss a zoning and design rules and guidelines to be applied to specific buildings. these are very specific. there is nothing unusual about

doing a project specific analysis. the first district court of appeals issued the oakland heritage alliance. they have a similar approval. they will come forward. this approach has been recognized. there is an argument that the entitlements are too vague. there has been some mention of the height. this is a good example of why a contains project level analysis. there are buildings built up to the maximum height. that is what the visual analysis is based upon. it provides a rendering of what it will look like.

where specific analysis will be necessary because of the impact is intrinsically peculiar to a specific sites. they identified this issue. i can give the two examples of this. there is a very detailed mitigation for the purposes of wind impact inside specific analysis of air quality impact. it is as a project level of detail. >> i want to touch upon recirculation. they have addressed this issue. we agree with the analysis. i want to point about the standard governing. the standards are well-

established. they derive from an association. it said that here are the specific situations with three circulation is required. these are in section 150. it is for the board to apply the standards. the standards are not discretionary. the standards recognize the projects involved. the fact that it changes does not mean you have to stay there. it has to change in a way for secession more impact. it does not mean it gets frozen. this of be the first outcome. this discloses impacts.

it is in ways that makes an environmentally more sensitive. this is exactly what is happening. this has happened since the draft process was released. the maximum height has lowered. that is in response to environmental consequences. an agency should not be penalized by having to recirculate it. we do not think it is required. the shift will not affect an environmental analysis. it'll not affect traffic or the footprint. they have repeated the claim

that it has changed. there will be fewer recreational resources. there will be a reduction in the open space. that is not in the approval. it might trigger recirculation. i'm not going to respond to a hypothetical. that is not confronted the. a word about the stability. there is a claim that is actually a program to eir. it will be a fix project to analyze. we disagree. this is comparable to the discussion of free circulation. the fact that they do of god does that mean that -- that they

do that does not mean it is a response to the analysis. this is appropriate. there are certain aspects that provide a measure of flexibility. these are simply variations. all these things are designed to provide flexibility. they are very clear about what the variants are. flexibility is not instability. some documents were submitted. there is an attachment. it consists of a memorandum.

they stated that the assumptions are incorrect and inadequate. this memo appears to confuse the district financing. it is confusing with infrastructure financing. it is just like the redevelopment plan. it appears to pervade the memorandum. we respectfully disagree. he does provide his own take on what appropriate valuations are and what assumption should be. i am not an economist. i will not take that on. i will say we have abundant evidence. it supports the economic analysis. it appears to be a difference of

opinion. >> a weird about the trust's exchange that is proposed. -- a word about the trust's exchange that is prepared. they have been replaced with the infrastructure financing district. it cannot occur under state law. the exchange act is not conditioned it on implementation of redevelopment. it is not in the exchange act. the legal test is set forth. it requires that the public trust purposes are met. the shift does not affect the implementation. they apparently disagreed that it has public trust value. the state legislature reservist

the jurisdiction. they have found that it promotes habitat recreation. it has already authorized a trust exchange. there has been mentioned of the coast guard facilities. i will note the attachment consists of a letter from the coast guard endorsing it. the coast guard is satisfied that their concerns have been met. a mention has been made about a talks a spirited there are reports. -- have been made about talks. there are reports. there are unknown contaminant there. with respect, that is not

characterize the evidence before us. the site is well characterized. an abundant amount of work has been performed. they are determining contamination. some of it has been dealt with. there is mitigation incorporated into the process. it to be carried out to the state. i would like to note that this litigation and corporate asiains been up held. a word, and there is an argument that the improvements are somehow part of the project

are the impact associated with it. they have been left out. they were analyzed and certified in 2005. they are considered as result things to occur. this'll be carried out by a different entity. >> at this time, why do not we hear from members of the public in support of the project.

i have a ton of cards here. i will read a whole bunch of them. after that, they will wind up. mccarthy, lazarus, gilman, jess, john stewart, leo capacitcassai george smith, lisa, james gilbert, patrick eulac, shrry williams, chang, emily rappaport. >> good evening. sampras is good chamber of commerce. thank you. -- san francisco chamber of

commerce. thank you. we urge you to deny the appeal to approve this and approved the entitlements before you. there are a few that have had the scrutiny of this project proposal. there is nothing of the redevelopment of the 1950's and 1960's. they have the scrutiny of the project. i think i have said this before. i was working across the hall. it'll come up with a higher density, open space and sustainable development, not for some property that was once farmland but for property that has provided jobs and housing

and brought people to and from it. there is little in the long- range reuse plan that can truly change since it was built for the world's fair in 1939 and taken over by the navy in 1941. we believe that the city and the development partners and the planning commission have properly certified them. we urge you to move it forward. thank you. >> my name is matt. i am representing the bay area. i am representing many of the large employers.

california has perhaps the most stringent environmental review laws in the world appeared no one can argue that this project has not jumped there every suit several -- world. no one can argue that this project has not done that there every hoop. people have made friends. this has been a thorough and exact environmental review process. we are trying to review it and move on. i urge you to improve the project entitlement documents about putting people to work. this is a catalyst project. it has the capability to kickstart this region's economy in a way that few other opportunities have fallen. a one to raise an issue. -- i want to raise an issue.

i met with the franni owner of a winery. we are talking about how you get to work in napa. he and many employees tried to work on a lead to the goals. the plug into the winery's system. the beat goes charge all day. -- the cars in charge of day. i would argue that in 15 or 25 years, and the people who live on treasure island produce similar vehicles to go to and from work. they will plug into the renewable energy systems. it will plug into the workplaces. it still have a less impact will 1. >> thank you very much. >> i am not against or for this

project. i am a veteran of the navy. i am stunned. i look around this room. it is full of accountants and lawyers and developers. i cannot see one document with the cost. san francisco is obviously paying for its. you cannot find one document related to the project. this has been part of the problem. you have undocumented expenses. i am part of the public. i cannot find one document that spells cells a name. -- that spells out a name. i do not see one supervisor here

that will answer that question. this is a massive project. this is a good price. i would like to see some numbers in documents with names, phone numbers, a statement to what each project will cost. you guys handed 34 $5 million. we cannot even produce a business card for me. you have to start looking at all these projects. you are not paying for it. the city and county is. it goes toward properties like this. thank you for your time.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> i am a resident. i strongly support this project. i urge you to support this. thank you. >> i am a practicing architect. i am a member of the board. i am a resident of telegraph hill. most of my friends and colleagues are all for this project. it will do more for this city than we have seen in a long time. thank you.

>> i am the executive director of the partnership. we have been housing formless -- formerly homeless families. this is the first new community the from the ground up has incorporated the planning and preferences of families. they've taken their needs and desires into the concept of planning. it is about how they want to raise their children. they firmly believe that there is a pathway to give back the 30%. the senate has drafted the legislation. we were told that it might be

going to the policy committee. we doubt that we will do everything to make sure that the islands as 400 units of housing and that we work together to rebuild housing in incorporate families that have experienced poverty and homelessness. thank you. >> i am speaking this evening as a volunteer. i was thinking about why i wanted to be involved. i remembered and i was appearing here at the time. i said i wanted to speak about a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

the project i see i am very proud said. we have a gain in areas for recreation. there is a net gain in housing as they try to maximize the housing stock >> and activities. that is in the economic opportunity. we have already started doing that. i am very proud of and excited to hear the different perspectives. been clean need to attend to details. i hope we can keep the big

picture in mind. thank you. >> to the evening. i would like to save one thing. i like to thank the opposition for bringing all of the concerns to the staff. i want to thank the staffer during such a great job pair of they are showing the support

that the staff has done. people that are concerned about the van fullandfill, it is all landfill up until samsung street. we have an island that is desperately deteriorating. all of you here have young children. i promise you with what i have seen with the new by claim, -- by explain the -- ,bike lane, you'll see a city that eases the

goals barry little to get to san francisco. -- that uses of bicycles very little to get to san francisco. everyone of you will be proud and be able to showcase its. >> the evening. >> we hire this to san franciscans. they are serving tihda and all the providers. they have a tight job broker. we focus on individuals to

experience multiple employment. they have literacy and language obstacles. it will help re-entered the work force. we train them and specific landscaping skills. we provide medical and other benefits. we can join the workforce and a much more productive. we provide opportunities within our organization. we have achieved results. only 3% are convicted of this. 87% are unemployed.

most become self supporting. we believe development will create continued opportunities for the public. we forgurge them to deny it. they can improve the product entitlement. >> i listened carefully to the attorney. i heard nothing about automobiles. i did hear about the center relocation. i did hear a question about historic resources. i think