why not participate in the peer review. is there something to be afraid of? i've reviewed your proposal, there's lots of interesting elements in it, and why not? i have two and a half minutes. why not? >> thank you. >> any further comments from the public? so now i will turn to the commission. who will speak first. [laughter] >> i was going to deferred to another commissioner, but she is pointing in this direction, so i will go first. first of all, i think that the

resolution that we have here is a pretty good product and it doesn't satisfy everybody and it never would or could or will, but i think it is pretty decent, and i think it says, at its heart, a lot of things that we all believe are important, and that doesn't include a commitment to improving the fishery, to adaptive management, to having a biological objective , and it does deal with what is our fact, which is there is a tension between some versions of doing that and water supply, and we need to reconcile that. we don't have the luxury of being in an advocacy position where we can just state a point of view. we have the responsibility of

reconciling that to the world that we live in and that serves our planet. one thing that i do agree with, and i would be prepared to make a resolution at the appropriate time to amend -- this is the next to last resolve that barry was talking about and that was also addressed to insert the word before, signed -- scientific review and put in the word independent, which i think gets as pretty much there. [please stand by]

>> and we need to do something about it and the commission on the puc to regard water as the public trust and be able to meet our obligations to our residents

as well as our contracts and our obligations to both of those entities. that was the frame and the real issues that we'll reiterate and have been repeatedly to put on the table were as a reminder, first this question of outcome and what would success look like. what are the biological items and the settlement process, our hope and directs for the resolution and our hope was together p.u.c. staff would come up with and the commitment once get into it whatever the outcomes are, we're adapting as we go so there are specific

bench marks and if the fish continue to decline we would then be there to say we're not doing something right and have to adjust course. that's the idea behind adaptive management. there's now a directive in the resolution to hold the process to address that and come up with an adaptive management plan with benchmarks. get the environmental review lined up as soon as possible to make that happen we cannot wait longer. the fish was in decline and there was a commitment to that and the question of peer review which keeps coming up. i for one agree with and think we should be reviewing it. i don't think there's anything to hide. the p.u.c. staff feels strongly

and believes in the model developed with the directs but what was in the tuolumne management plan. i would agree and with that amendment there needs to be an in depend en -- independent review as part of the process and would support that amendment. i would go a bit further and add two other small amendments for my fellow commissioners to consider. i also had a question about the same comment that was raised about posing significant adverse impacts. and i would feel more comfortable to use a language significantly impact instead. oppose significant impacts whereas in the clause. i understand there's harm that

will be caused and we need to address the water supply issues and there's economic concerns and impacting on rationing, all sorts of impacts but i look forward to naming specifically and looking for solution to address but i would be more comfortable with that language as a friendly amendment. then the last piece and i would just kind of put this to my commissioners and i'm not sure if it could or should appear as an amendment but the word sustainable has different interpretations. i just want to go on the record. because we have not yet come up with what specific outcomes are, sustainability and sustainable has a lot of room for interpretation. i would feel more comfortable with language along the lines of fish populations that are

growing and become self-sustaining. short of a specific outcome. sustainable just feels wishy washy to me. it's still short of the outcome or specific bold goals that i would love to see in a resolution like this and that i'm hoping the state will come up with and the p.u.c. will work with the state to meet that bold goal and meet our water supply obligations. so with that i have three proposed amendments, one which is to add the word independent. second is to change the post significant adverse impacts language to significantly impact and third would be the word sustainability changing or sustainable changing to fish population s that are growing

and becoming self-sustaining. >> would you like it submit those separately or all together?becoming self-sustaini. >> would you like it submit those separately or all together? >> separately. >> commissioner: separately i suppose. >> could you indicate which clauses those are. >> i know it's hard because they're not numbered. so the independent word would appear which is the first amendment we'll address is the second to last further resolved and would appear before the word scientific.

>> i think i followed closely enough so i don't know if you want to move to independent or separately, your pleasure. >> we'll take it separately. i would move to amend introduce an amendment adding the word independent in the second further resolved clause. >> i will second that. >> further discussion? comments from the public? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. >> i think you're kaushging about for the -- talking about for the second potential change in the fifth whereas on the page

on the third line that starts the state's proposed flow regime will limit it's ability to meet supply obligations an strike the word pose and change significant to significantly, delete adverse and take the "s" off impacts and add the word on. to read to meet supply obligations an impact the over $2.7 -- $2.7 >> 2.7 million people. >> and i'd like to propose that as an amendment. >> okay. do i have a second? any comments from the public? further discussion on this change? >> i will vote for this.

the main reason si -- is i don't want to spend our time talking about the intent is to deal for the fishery issues. will state for the record i believe the original statement and there are significant adverse impacts in one way or another will affect our service area. if for no other reason it will be spend money and everybody will pay rates and it would affect everybody different ways but effect everybody one way or another. i believe it's a true statement. i will support this as a don't think it really retracts from the statement and not what i want to talk about on the resolution. i want to talk about the resolve and what our commitments are. >> do you have any comment? >> i have to agree with the change and i think commissioner

moran when we talk about significantly impact by increased rationing or spending substantial funds for new water supply is significant. i'm good with that. >> okay. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. the last one, steve, you still with me here? >> i think the third page the second further resolved that this commission direct staff to look at outcomes and voluntary agreement that will strike the word increased fish populations and strike the to make them sustainability and replace them that are growing and becoming self-sustaining. >> and become self-sustaining. >> i would ask a question.

what does it mean for a population to be self-sustaining? >> i think these are all words that really specific definition the concept itself of self-sustaining is that it doesn't need artificial support. and there's a question on the system we haven't really spoken to except in some comments the influence of hatcheries in california and the strain of fish into different rivers makes the question of self-sustaining a difficult one to get around. but soon we have hatcheries and stray i don't know if we'll be successful and know if the state is really willing to grapple with that issue because the department of fish and wildlife

is strongly in support of hatcheries and thinks they're an important tool. they are, but it moves you away from self-sustaining. i think that's just maybe it as long as we all recognize that issue, i think it's something i have no objection to but it is a big issue. >> and the board states things like doubling or viability and it's hard to find the right word because there's a lot of connotation in each of those words . self-sustaining i wasn't even thinking about the hatchery issue because you did have enough fish coming from a hatchery and if they're reproducing enough they're self-sustaining and doesn't

matter where they come from but i provides more on the question of sustainability. >> if the existence of fish having their hand on the valve i don't know they'd be self-sustainable in a natural way. >> i don't think it says whether it's a natural or not natural environment. could have a self-sustaining population that's not natural but we're in the talking specifically about the impacts. my hope is it's not opening a can of worms, so to speak whether the fish or native or hatchery by saying self-sustaining. the idea is the population is going to grow, doesn't matter the source.

enough to become self-sustaining. so there is a large enough population to be viable and sustainable. whatever the word is. >> i don't really see where that language is that much different from what's there now. this is one i don't mind leaving as it is in it's vagaries because of where the v.s.a. process is. i would be okay not having that amendment move forward at this time as long as the conversation goes on record this is really part of the urgency of this sto get to those outcomes so we really know what a sustainable population of fish is for the health of our future and our

future eco system and future generations. that's the main intent of this. the idea behind tightening that language is an effort to get there and it's certainly not as far as we need to go but going on record saying sustainable is not as clear or as far as we should or could go. and with that, i withdraw the amendment. >> you don't have to withdraw it. >> commissioner: it's a little bit vague. >> to me sustainable means that. >> so i would introduce the amendment and we can see if there's any public comment or

commissioner comment and then vote on it. >> commissioner: sure. >> commissioner: so the amendment would be fish populations that are growing and become self-sustaining. >> commissioner: i think the issue is defined self-sustaining versus manmade environment. you can put words in there but it gets more confusing when it seems we'll have goals set soon. >> it's supposed to create more definition to that because sustainable is self-sustaining to me in my view is the opposite, if you will, of going extinct. they are able to sustain themselves and they're growing. the growing word is important

too. >> are you saying we shouldn't have hatcheries? >> no, i'm not getting in the hatcheries. i'm trying to avoid that. i did not bring that up. were the fish come from they're able to grow and maintain that growth and state the population well if they can grow to 100,000 or sustain themselves at that number and we're creating the ideal environment for that to happen. >> i do support the sentiment. i don't support the words. it talks about increased populations to make them sustainable. that's clear when you introduce the concept of self-sustainability it raises questions instead of resolving them. >> so the amendment is on the table? >> no.

>> if you moved it, then you moved it. >> second. >> is there a second? >> if there's no second, it doesn't move. >> so any other public comment? >> it's an interesting code. it was once called the legislative embodiment of the public trust doctrine. and i think it's fish and game code section 5937 which places a responsibility on owners and operators of dams to take responsibility for maintaining fisheries in good condition. fisheries that are established

or may become established. that's been their a long time. and i'm sation -- saying here is where public trust and sustainability do a lot of overlap and interplay and economics and science has sort of separated the tether betwethg and i support the efforts completely of the vice chair to try to establish good intent and good practice in this commission. >> speaking to letter and intent of the public trust doctrine is in good and the species act 5739, not so much. just keep fish in good

condition. so those existing laws, the letter and intent is very good as a goal. speak from experience in other wathersheds there's been harvestable levels for fisheries an tribal uses so that's another way of stating the goal. >> and first, i present the fishing industry. we're supporters of hatcheries. they were built to compensate for the damage to our rivers done by dams and diversion projects. that's what they're there for to maintain fisheries at a healthy level. that's not the same as self-sustaining. our goal would be a truly self-sustaining system and the biologies wrestle with this a lot saying self-sustaining means

populations that sustain themselves without hands-on management. there's a difference between a hand on a valve and a hand on a fish. that's what the managers talk about. once you take it into a hatchery and physically manipulating fish one at a time, it's hard to call this self-sustaining. there's a difference between turning a valve to make sure there's healthy river flows or provide habitat that allows the fish to be self-sustaining. there's some gray territory there but i think there's a distinction between the hands on management of individual fish and ways in which we try to restore healthy eco system functions. the third comment is we've been wrestling with this for a fair amount of time. one way the state and feds and state board have wrestled with this is by coming up with a specific metric. the state passed the salmon

doubling metric. that was adopted by the federal government in 1992. that is the doubling of naturally producing salmon compared to the baseline of 67 to 92. that's the federal metric for restoring salmon for sustainability, if you wish. the state board also adopted that and in the legislature the congress and state adopted that. that's a healthy metric that's been around 30 years at this point. it doesn't use the word sustainability but it's also more specific. i'll leave it there. thanks. >> i would just like to speak briefly to the state doubling. i've been trying to get my head around that through the whole conversation. the reason i fell away from that and didn't really like that is because i think there's a lot of questions out there on which baseline you're using. if there's only 2,000 now, i would not be okay with 4,000.

so i think the state has some of the same questions. which is why i think leaving it slightly open with a directive from this commission to come up with bold goals and specific objectives around what it's going to take to create a healthy fishery may in the end up being a better goal or outcome at the end of the day than the doubling. i just wanted to respond to that because the doubling one is a tricky one. and i do know that's in the state law right now and a wouldn't be surprised if questions at least to establish a baseline of what doubling means would come forward as part of these agreements and i would encourage it and if that emerges what it's the mean double from what to what. >> okay.

mr. rishie do you have any comments? >> no, i think you've heard a lot of things here and i think actually make sure you're aware, the state water board is actually commencing a process. the plan to establish biological goals nor -- for the plants which they didn't have one and they've convened a scientific panel and they heard information from them and there'll be more over time. >> so, now, i need a motion for the item that has been amended. >> i believe we passed both the amendment and i'd like to move

the adoption of the full resolution. >> as amended. i will second that. >> any discussion from the public? any further discussion from the commission? all those in favor. opposed? motion carries. yea. yay. okay. next item, please. >> clerk: item 12, 12. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior, national park service, to fund comprehensive management, collaborative environmental stewardship, and security for the watersheds within yosemite national park supplying the san francisco regional water system, for an amount not to exceed $33,257,629 and with a duration of four year subject to board of a[speaking french] supervisors. >> motion carries. next item.

>> clerk: item 13 13. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the treasure island development authority setting forth the terms and conditions for the sfpuc to continue to provide utility services for naval station treasure island, with a retroactive start date of october 1, 2018, and ending on june 30, 2020. >> any discussion? all those in favor. motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 14. 14. authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a cost share agreement with contra costa water district, zone 7 water agency, alameda county water district, bay area water supply & conservation agency, the city of brentwood, east bay municipal utility district (ebmud), grassland water district, san luis & delta-mendota water authority, and santa clara valley water district, for funding costs of planning for the potential expansion of the los vaqueros reservoir. with this authorization, the sfpuc increases its maximum contribution to the cost share agreement from the $300,000 approved on march 12, 2019 to $354,129, with no change to the duration of the agreement. >> move approval.

>> any public comment on this item? discussion from the commission? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> clerk: item 15, 15. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco recreation and park department setting forth each agency's respective responsibilities for the construction, operation, and maintenance of green infrastructure on el camino del mar in lincoln park. >> move approval. >> second. >> public comment? further discussion? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> clerk: would you like for me to read the closed session item prior to public comment? >> yes, please. >> clerk: item 18,

existing litigation david alfaro, et al. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-15-547492 date filed: august 20, 2015 proposed settlement of action as to property claim of victoria sanchez in the amount of $97,500. >> any comments on closed session? seeing none can i have a motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in >> the commission is now back in open session. the announcement from closed session is item 18 would settled. -- was settled. can i have a motion whether to disclose the discussion? >> move not to disclose. >> all those in favor.

the motion carries. is there any other new business? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:03. the treasure island development authority infrastructure and transportation committee

meeting. item number 1, call to order. director, riched ardson. >> here iny , director tsen? >> here. >> director lai? >> director dunlop? >> here. >> we do have a quorum. >> ok. thank you all for being here and i also wanted to thank those that are watching remotely. with us today we have treasure island commissioners, fei tsen who is the commission president and we have commissioner mark dunlop and i see our partners in development and staff in the audience. and mr. bob beck is also here. again good morning. thank you all for watching. >> clerk: item number 2, general public comment. >> if there are any public comments on actions that are not on the agenda, so please come

forward and share them with us. i see none. >> clerk: item number 3, concept agenda. approving the minutes of the february 19th, 2019, meeting. >> moved and seconded. all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> the ayes have it. next thing on the agenda. >> clerk: item number, subphase review update. >> so rich loretto from fran loretto, provide an update on subphase submitted in january. >> good morning. i'm happen to be here to today to report on the status of the subphase application. my name is rich loretto, bob had mentioned i'm with the prime consultants on the project. as bob had mentioned, the subphase application was

submitted to the city agencies in january. and happy to report that we did not get any major comments as part of that subphase application. i think partially because there was a lot of work that was done in advance of that subphase application, to inform the city of what the project is. and all of the elements of it. the comments that we did receive were more technical in nature, that will be addressed during the design process. but nothing that changed the overall plan and program for the subphase. so we are going through the design process now and we have met with the city agencies already to go through the comments that are design-related, to be in advance of that. when we do submit the construction drawings, they will already have seen that we are addressing their comments that they have for the subphase application. again nothing that is -- nothing that affects the subphase application. so we're really happy to report that. >> thank you. just i'm sure the commissioners

have questions. again thank you. you've done your due diligence. which are the agencies that you will be dealing with and the next steps? >> sop we've already met with fire to go over -- just to make sure that the streets are able to -- that their trucks can manage the streets. and so we've met with them to go over that. and also the street widths. we met with ssmta to go over the intersections. and primarily those are the two major ones, along with a.d.a. and we did also meet with wastewater enterprises to go over utility clearances, as the streets are fairly narrow and we needed to maintain some clearances between utilities, which we're working with them now through, as well as with water, the water department. so we are going through the process. >> commissioners, any further

questions? commissioner dunlop? miss railroad thank you very -- >> commissioner dunlop: any issues or is it going really smoothly? >> at this point it's going very smoothly. yes. when we go into the construction documents, there will be some back and forth as there usually is in that process. but we're trying to stay in front of that by adjusting comments, so that we have those all addressed at our first -- that will help hopefully reduce the comments. i think what we're learning is that with meetings in advance of, we can inform and let the city departments know we're working with them to address their concerns. i think it goes a long way. i think at this point we're in good position. >> commissioner dunlop: thank >> president tsen: commissioners , any further questions before i open that to the public? public, any questions? no. anyway, this is very heartwarming. so we are actually -- we'll be meeting all of the milestones

here. thank you, sir. >> we'll be in position to resubmit for city review this month. and hopefully be in position to submit -- or to show the final subphase application in april. >> president tsen: okay. thank you, sir. commissioner? >> i would just add that with the resubmittal, the gicd, will be seeking approve next month of the subphase. and then following that, we'll begin the street improvement permit application process and the overall objective there is to get to final approval, within nine months. so that provides for a maximum of two resubmittals. so i think the ground work that rich mentioned, that's been laid with the agencies, the experience from prior subphases, puts us in a good position to accomplish that for the actual

street improvement permits and the mapping as well. >> an issue was raised in previous design phases, as to the curb site, especially the drop-off zones. you know, the way that we've now used our streets, it's much different than in previous times. and we've often times have put parking along the carbside. i think that -- curbside. this point was raised early in the design phase, whether you'll have more zones for autonomous vehicles for drop-offs for shared rides, which is certainly a much different way that we use our streets these days. yeah. our plan includes drop-off zones, we have track loading

zones as well. those are all incorporated into the street plans. >> any public comment? next, the agenda. >> clerk: family number 5, a review of flex-zoning and zoning heights. >> thank you, directors. be co-presenting this item with natalie bonwick and kevin griffith from ticd. there was some discussion at earlier board meeting of the zoning on the island and the implications for potentially utilizing, modified type 3 construction, a lot of the island is zoned at 70 feet, 65 feet. and so we would just kind of

wanted to go back to the d for d and walk through the zoning requirements that are laid out in the program. so i mentioned that the design for development document is kind of our implementation tool for the special-use district legislation, that was adopted for treasure island. and included in that is the maximum height plan that lays out the zoning across the island. and one of the unique things about treasure island is a substantial portion of the the island, including the eastern neighborhood, the bulk of the eastern neighborhood is subject to flex-zoning. so there's a base zoning, but that -- we can actually go above that in many instances. so the flex-zoning there's one

parcel, the tower parcel that's zone up to 450 feet and three parcels that are zone the up to 315 feet. and then as i mentioned, the bulk of the east side neighborhood, as well as several parcels on the west side of the site, are flex-zoned up to 240 feet. then there are also, as shown in blue on the image, a number of parcels that are zoned up for to 115 feet. so there are a number of sites where the project can seek more height. the flex-zoning on the eastern side of the neighborhood has some special provisions to it, in that that area cannot be uniformly increased to 120 feet. but where it is increased above

the base zoning, then there are offset requirements from other parcels, before they can go up. so the image at the top center shows that any individual tower, going up above the base zoning, has to have 115-foot offset from any other tower and that the north and south directions from any individual tower, that the closest tower must be offset by 500 feet. and that's both about allowing sunlight into the neighborhood and also allowing space between towers to allow for view corridors and increase the diversity of the neighborhood. in the initial subphase, the

design for development has four parcels, that are flex-zoning and ticd is planning to take advantage of those, so that includes the 450 feet tower site and one of the 315-foot tower sites. and then as we go into the second subphase, the subphase application currently indicates towers at the indicated locations here. so the lower two are both 315-foot tower sites and then the other three fall within that 240-foot flex-zone. so that starts to increase the intensity the ticd is pursuing here. it does also include some of our

sites from going up above the -- exercising the flex-zoning option. but generally speaking, in our massinger we haven't seen that's something we would pursue. but in this mass -- in this layout here, we could do it on e2.3 orb e1.2. we just wouldn't be able to do it on ic4.2 and 3, which are in the center of the page. then in terms of construction types. i just blew up the height limits generally to show that again a bulk of the island is 65-foot zone, along the city side neighborhood. there are a number of sites that are 70 or 125, allowing a little more height. and for people who are watching,

may not be familiar with the different construction types, type 1 concrete or steel construction, that can have an unlimited number of floors. and based on projects in the kurt mohcd pipeline, they're seeing construction costs per square foot of around $528. for type 3, over -- sorry, yeah, type 3 over type 1, that's up to five levels of fire- resistant wood over one to two levels of concrete, showing an average cost per square foot of $475. again based on the mohcd pipeline. ant the type five, which is up to four levels of wood over one to two levels of concrete, very close to type 3 in the average cost per square foot of $461 per

square foot. with all that, i'll hand it over to natalie to talk about -- we took a look at the -- at our parcels and how we would do massing and whether we would want to go above any of those height limits. >> good morning. so once again i'm natalie bonwick and i am here in my capacity as an affordable development housing consultant. so,s you know, a cap of 8,000 total units for the island. and with the 27.2% affordable housing obligation, that comes out to 2,173 units, which in the d.d.a. is referred to as authority units. and those affordable units are

the one that will be developed by non-profit affordable housing markets -- affordable housing developers. and of those units, that will also include the replacement units for the current one treasure island, catholic charities, community housing partnership, health rate 360. that all falls within the 2,173 cap. of the 2,173 -- excuse me, as it says on the slide, the 1,866. the difference between the 2,173 and the 1866 are the inclusionary units, that are being developed by ticd, lanar and their affiliates. what we love about working on treasure island is that land is delivered free, clean, fully entitled, utilities to the curb.

so the red lines are the ones where the affordable housing project have always been designated. we love that because there's no opportunityies for saying that affordable housing shouldn't be there. it's what we've been working on since the d.d.a. was executed. you'll see they're integrated with the market rate. so based upon the preliminary massing studies, we can develop the 1,866 units, currently what we have is -- this is a conservative estimate. but of those 1866, we're looking at one type 1 project, seven type 3 projects, and nine type 5 projects. that's a conservative estimate. with that conservative estimate, if you were to move every type 5 project, to a type 3, you would

gain a minimum unit increase of minimally 180 units. so again the cost per square foot differential, between type 5 and the type 3 isn't that huge. and you could gain that extra unit. so there's extra capacity within the building heights. of course, type 5 is the least expensive construction type. so to explain the -- as you know, one of the parcels is currently in predevelopment, parcel c3.1. that's the project with mercy housing and catholic charities. it will include the replacement of all of the catholic charities units, and all of the remaining occupies are -- eligible for income qualifying or over income. so the reason why we're bringing this parcel up as a case study, is to show what the analysis would be when you move from a

type 3 building to a type 1. and the cost. so this parcel is interesting as a case study. it has -- i just want to show the map. so this is the location of parcel c3.1. you'll see two different height limits. the blue represents 125 feet. and then the tan color is a 40 feet height limit. and that's on the shared right away. so mercy housing, along with its partner, conducted an analysis. within that footprint, to do type 3, they were able to get 135 total units. that's four levels of type 5 on-grade, along the shared right-of-way and then five levels of type 3, over two levels of concrete, allowing avenue c.

that's about the 125 height limit is. because the height limit could go as far as 125, they analyzed 149 units. that's just one higher level. and that was on the shared right-of-way, four levels of type 1 townhomes. and then on avenue c, eight levels of type 1. so in their analysis, the hard court per square foot, from the two different types, went from 335 to 349. the cost per unit $751,000 to $761,000. total development cost went up $13 million. the gap, though, had a huge jump. the gap went from $44 million to $50 million and that's a reflection on affordable housing financing sources. the gap per unit went from -- on

a per-unit basis wasn't that different. but the gap per unit for each of the 14 additional units was $481,000 for each of the 14 units, if they had gone from type 3 to type 1. so some of these costs are at $481,000 for 14 units, there's some items that are unique to the parcel, that made it more expensive potentially. i just want to highlight them, so you know this might not be as tip as in other units. because the units are replacement units and the units on treasure island are generally larger, two, three, four bedrooms. no one bedrooms that need to be replaced, the cost per unit is higher. likewise, because type 1 construction is a heavier building type, there would have been more geo technical work than anticipated -- than planned for, so we would have had to find the money to increase the

soil conditions to accommodate more heavier -- a heavier building. and then also until all of the household replacement units are -- so all people with a relocation benefit from the pre-dda have a replacement unit, 10% of all units on authority units are reserved for over-income households and have no subsidy attached to that. so the big jump, conscious -- but the real big jump is the cost per square foot, to go from type 3 to type 1. and in this case, given the size was only going to increase the unit count by 14 units. therefore, it was decided to stick with the 135 units, rather than trying to identify an additional $6.7 million gap.

and to have to identify an additional $6.7 million would have delayed the project further. and with that i'll pass it to kevin griffith. >> thank you. good morning, board members. kevin griffith from ticd. let me just step back for a minute. i believe the reason that we're having the discussion and comments from board members at previous meetings, addressing code changes and the previous years after the plan was baked, that would allow five-over to construction to get to 70 feet and a primarily wood frame type-ology. so, first of all, i'd like to say ticd really appreciates the board thinking this way. and really follow acting more as a partner than just a regulating body. we really are fortunate to have an active board that's thinking creatively about the future and making sure that our plan really works, to allow us to pull off,

you know, the great goals that we have baked into the plan. so definitely want to express that appreciation. we did look at this in response. and i think our conclusion is sort of similar to the affordable housing conclusion, is that there is actually already plenty of flexibility baked in the plan. so there are areas, as we -- it's not really showing here, but on the previous version of the overall height map for the island, there are vast areas in both the east side and city side neighborhoods, that have the flexible zoning with the additional height incorporated already. so that there are many, many parcels where we can already go from the 65 to the 75-foot height limit within there. really it's the 8,000 unit together cap that's going to be the governor on the development of the island, not the 65-foot height that's shown for many of the parcels. that flexibility really does allow us to maximize and really, you know, reach the final-unit

count. but, you know, again we appreciate both the board's thinking about this issue. and also just the flexibility that was baked into the plan, you know, before many of us started working on it, to be able to develop the island. i think the flexibility is there for us to respond to, you know, the economics, the time and also things like code changes and changes in construction technology. the flexibility that's in the plan allows us to adjust and kind of build out in the best way as we go forward. so we don't think there's really call to actually make changes to the plan. we think that, you know, everything that we need is kind of already baked in at this stage. but we appreciate the question and the impetuous to look further into this. >> thank you for your presentation. i'm sure we have a -- lots of questions to ask you here. so i just want to be, before i open this up for further

discussion, we have all of these flexibilities for, you know, height, density. but, on the one hand, based on the case studies that you've presented, for the three levels, that's very interesting. it's not economically or problematically advantageous based on just what you presented. on the one hand, you know, i'm looking even though level 1, case study 1, level 1, it's more expensive, you know, because you're using steel. again i'm looking at the geology of treasure island. up front it might be expensive, but the durability and, you know, down the line we need to front those costs, you know, given the area. on the one hand, we're saving money, if we go to the other level. however, let's be mindful and cognizant of the fact that we

are cognizant of where we are in the sea level rise and all of the other stuff that we talk about. and so it becomes very interesting. we've got to mention that we would like to utilize modular as a type of a construction. and again we would like for you to explain where again, based on the current technology or technology, which of those levels would be able for use that, you know, five stories of the seven stories. bear in mind, yes. we'd like for you to explain that. >> i just wanted to say that the very first affordable housing project, with the un-- the one that's being developed in chinatown community development center, will be a modular construction. and they are presenting at the april tida board meeting. you'll hear directly from them about their project. >> and how many stories max? >> it's still 10 stories. >> okay. >> and they actually have a

different height limit than parcel c3.1. and along avenue c, it's a little bit shorter. >> lastly on the replacement, again a little clarification here. are we matching -- i mean, we are providing affordable housing, we're not necessarily matching four bedrooms before and now you're going to be getting four bedrooms. that's not -- we're matching approximately to what you can get. because, yeah, is that -- >> i mean, we have to -- per the d.d.a., there's a certain number of households that have replacement unit benefits. and those units need to be matched based on the unit sizes. but moving forward, once everybody receives their benefit, it's more typical to both the market and what's typically seen in affordable housing. >> commissioner richardson: city wide. city policies that guarantee one