but i do echo commissioner elberling. in every issue we have faced in san francisco, we are balancing costs, balancing what is good and what is not as good. but i do feel that for me i look at what i come to a conclusion of triple bottom-line benefit. i look at the kind of sustainable model this is. it is maybe not perfect in some eyes, but it is quite an outstanding project. i look at the economy not just for small businesses and jobs for every island resident, but for our city. we heard from residents of the island and everyone that has jobs on the island. but this is about our city. it is part of district 6. but it is not just about the island. it is about our city moving forward as an economic force in our region. i think the economic benefits are there. last, referring again back to what commissioner elberling talked about, i look at the community effort seen from people living on the island. it is so difficult for them to come to our meetings because of where they live and work. but it still came to give input. that

commissioner elberling: [inaudible] about the seismic risk of the existing island -- i have been involved in this project from the very beginning. my greatest concern is that it has taken us 15 years to get to this point. if there is any emergency, the urgency is the existing seismic hazard of the island, and its exposure to eight -- its exposure to a tsunami in the bay. it is not as scary as the common to presented, but it is a serious matter. the longer we wait -- every year we wait to raise the berm around the island is one more year of that existing hazard to continue for those that are there today. i think if there is any case of urgency for action, that is the case. i know what it has taken 15 years. it is the horrible amount of red tape, multiple agencies, and many issues. but i certainly do not want to wait another five years to address that matter. because it has not been described it, i would like to ask staff the tale of the contingency arrangements that were built into the project development agency now -- to go back from the 25% affordable housing if possible. we heard this a

i know john elberling also raised this as a question, to get more specifics on how we are going to get from 25% back up to 30% if we have state legislation that passes. i know assemblyman amiano and others have legislation that has been introduced or are planning to. but could you give us a the public more specifics about how this legislation may help us get back to that 30%? also, there was an option of san francisco buying back parcels if funding comes from local, state, or federal sources. >> one we can do this is to get additional tax dollars. basically, we are able to spend the city share. under a development scenario, you also get state share of tax increments. what we want to do is go back and make changes to the ifp law to allow us to find affordable housing to get some of the state share back into the project. the argument we are making for the state is but for that it is tough for us to get the affordable housing levels we would like at 30%. the port has been successful doing that for per se 70. oo -- for pier 70. they made the argument that pier 70 is a tough place to develo

chairperson mar: i know john elberling brought this up and said the seismic concern is one of the biggest issues. when with the seismic and other infrastructure changes be made? is this right at the beginning of the project? >> this would be done before any buildings could be billed. that area would have to be seismically upgraded. the would be the first improvements made. chairperson mar: 1 others like you did not get to yet is the -- one slide you did not get to yet is the bcdc slide about seismic safety. my biggest question -- this is an island. downtown is surrounded by land. but this is still an island. i know we heard presentations before about how the different reinforcements around the island were making it safe to tsunami some. is that correct? -- make it safe to tsumanis. is that correct? >> buildings are 350 feet from the coastline to make accommodations for sea level rise and anything else. moving on to another topic that was well discussed throughout the project and throughout the joint commission is transportation. the project calls for about $125 million in transportation,

. >> john elberling. larry mazzolla. linda richardson and honorable jane kim is not seated tonight.nk you. commissioners, the first category on this joint agenda is public comment on agenda items where the public hearing is closed. and that's an opportunity for the public to speak prior to the certification or the commission's consideration of the certification of the final environmental impact report. that is the only item on this calendar that has already been heard in a public hearing, and the public hearing has been closed. so for all of you who want to speak on the certification of the environmental document, there are a number of cards, and they're all mixed up. so if the joint chairs would allow, i would ask for those who want to speak to line up in the center aisle. president olague: that is the preferred way of dealing with it. thank you. and just so the public can be aware, this will be your only opportunity to address certification of the e.i.r. once the commission closes public comment in this category and they go into deliberation on the certification, the public hearin