currently, most of the historic analysis concerning historic projects in san francisco is done by the planning department. the historic preservation commission is only involved in those instances where the charter spells out a specific involvement. right now on treasure island or your balbuena -- or yerba buena, there is no jurisdiction that would be triggered. we would rely on the planning department and their historic experts to analyze a project in terms of its compatibility with the secretary of interior's standards. certainly one thing that you could do in this case -- there is a provision in the design for development which is one of the documents that is part of the special use district, which is

coming up later on your agenda. you could certainly propose an amendment to that that rather than having tihdi rely on -- right now, they are qualified as a historic resource experts. you could qualify that the expert be from the planning department. they could then consult with the hpc if they decided to do that. this is more of a procedural matter in terms of who does this kind of review. it does not address or does not create any concerns about inadequacy, which is a matter that is before you right now. i think some of the earlier amendments which were discussed to some of the other documents were procedural in nature and do not raise questions about the adequacy of the eir.

supervisor mar: i will talk to you in a minute about how to have that advisory role of a historic preservation expert, but i will talk to you about that later. thank you, everyone, for the explanation. supervisor weiner: thank you. excuse me. i have a couple -- a question about transportation. one of the main attacks on the eir project generally by the appellants is their claim that the non-automobile transportation between the island and its san francisco and elsewhere is inadequate and the parking on the island will induce everyone to want to drive, and we will have bottlenecks and gridlocks. in their appeal, they talk about

how they see that the ferry and bus service has been reduced overtime and that there is a capacity limit for how many ferries can cross the bay. my experience with this project so far has been that the transportation is extremely robust. kahane -- but i would appreciate further elucidation on that particular issue. >> of victoria wise, planning department. there is in addition measure that provides an enhanced transit scenario for which there would be a muni bus 108, free ferry service, transit service to the east bay. there is sufficient transit provided under that mitigation

measures to accommodate the projected transit rider ships -- writer -- ridership for the project. there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate all the writers -- riders and even additional riders that would want to ride transit. supervisor weiner: thank you. one other question. i of course did not serve on the board from january 2005 until january 2009, when one of the appellants was president of the board of supervisors. but i understand that during that time the various projects including the eastern neighborhood and hunters point -- we followed a similar process to what we followed here in terms of the development agreement and the project as a

whole being heard at committee and then forwarded without recommendation before the board acted, or acted on the eir or heard the eir. if i could get clarification on that, whether a similar process was filed during the previous board president, as we are following here, in terms of that time. >> city attorney's office, through the president. i do not know if i could necessarily pinpoint the time when this happened in terms of the years, but it certainly is a regular practice of the board of supervisors to do this when there is an eir appeal. this certainly occurred recently with the parkmerced project.

it occurred i believe with the 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 hired outside 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 do that does not mean it is a response to the analysis.