however, for purposes providing an appropriately conservative impact analysis, different buildout periods were selected. for example, in the population and housing section, the e.i.r. identifies the 20-year time frame for replacing the demolished units. in the transportation analysis, the year 2030 is used to access future accumulative transportation alternative and the greenhouse gas analyzes the emission of construction over a 20-year period. it's typical of major redevelopment of a multiacre site such as parkmerced to take approximate 20 or 30 years to build out. the analysis uses a 20-year time frame because population and transportation forecasts for san francisco and the region that form part of the basis for the analysis are made through the year 2030 and are typically made for a 20-year period and because assuming the site is built out and occupied in 20 years, concentrates the impacts into a shorter period which then provides us with a more conservative analysis of environment affects. representative phasing of demolition and construction activities is described in the e.i.r. wit

the 17.5 is the maximum fiscal surplus at buildout. at the same time, we are getting dollars for the general fund. there is also growing general surplus. so i will try to -- thanks for pointing that out. sometimes i do not know if i am communicating well enough. finally, there is also a net positive impact on the sf mta, both during construction and during the buildout. there are those costs in the fiscal analysis that we were dealt extensively with the finance staff, the mta, and others. finally, the economic impact. the first section was focusing on the general fund. the second section is speaking broadly on the general impacts for the city. this is also a $7 billion project. this would over the life of the project support almost 35,000 construction jobs, and that is a pretty significant economic stimulus in the city a time when we are suffering record unin play. of course, this would be over 20 to 30 years. and then, finally, note we anticipate once construction is complete that there'd be a permanent $300 million annually of econom

work for the buildout that advocates have kept advocating for here in san francisco, the full detailed plan for the buildingout for their c.c.a., so that they're getting ahead of the game on local distributed generation renewables and efficiency. and so i'd add that to the note on the progress at the local san francisco utilities commission, on dual tract that we've been talking about. in a really nice way, marine can represent the track that the sfpuc and lafco staff seems to be leaning towards, sonoma represents the track that we have finally gotten agreed to, to actually plan out the entire local buildout and so as we move both those tracks forward, we should be looking at sonoma to see how it differs from marine and how we can have sort of a dialect between those two to educate bus how to do our own and do both tracks. one note on sort of statewide issues, i just noticed today and i just noticed it from one comment from one solar panel owner on a blog. so this would still have to be verified. but according to this person that was responding to an article about smart meters, he has

the advance notice in in an orderly buildout. why do i say that? this is the scale of a neighborhood. we are essentially looking at a better neighborhood plan. but it is important to note, like those areas, there is no public land taxes or funds being expended. this is not like candlestick or the shipyard which are truly public-private projects. what does this mean? this means we do not have the same amount of control necessarily on how this evolves. without us having a stake in it, it is hard for us to dictate. so we let the developer respond to market demands, and when there is an opportunity to build, they can build in a set of rules. as i mentioned before, they must get development phase approval. that is up to a minimum of 500 units and a maximum of 2500 units. so put it another way, if the fewest is 3, and the most is, i think, about 12, so the project will be broken up into larger small pieces, and each development phase approval has to specify specific development, block by block, and then, finally, and most importantly, the delivery of the

there may impracticality be more than the 3002 under and 21 at any given point in buildout in case you have to build the replacement unit for the replacement buildings before you can remove tenants from the existing buildings, so in all likelihood, there will be more rental control units on park merced then there exists today -- than there exist today. and a tenant can apply for a rent reduction. this is due to construction. if they feel that it is excessive that represents a diminution of housing services, they can petition the rent board and seek either a reduction in rent, or other remedies. finally, and i think this is my last slide, and, again, i appreciate your patience, supervisors. i want to speak -- speak briefly on it. city attorney charles sullivan is the primary director, he is actually at jury duty, and the other attorney who has been primarily guiding this effort is also unavailable, but they will hopefully be available at future hearings. it is the city attorney's opinion that the state relocation law does not apply to the parker said projects. we have obviously looked a

and i think that with this 20-year buildout that you're talking about, i hope that you're not going to be sorry that you certified this e.i.r. because there are warning signs and there are people who are warning you that this is not a smart development. it has also expanded radically from the way it was first proposed. i just think that we should try think ahead to what might happen and what could happen on that island to the people living there, stuck there in the case of a really bad earthquake and tsunami. thank you very much. >> commissioners in, good evening, saul bloom, archaeology. it is no longer adequate to effectively represent the project. i support the comments of my colleagues from telegraph hill, sierra club and others. it has been the work for the benefit of san francisco since 1991. i was a member in 1949 and 1995 we -- 1994 and 1995 we sued the navy to kick start the cleanup. in 1996, we started despite our concerns about ferry and transit. the problem for me is that the balance struck by the prior project has been undone by the new units of housing. nothing in the com

take to carry out the project, just in the same way we don't know how long it takes for a total buildout under any area plan the city may consider. so under the -- in the e.i.r., we analyze what is the most reasonable projection for how long a project would take, but do try to take into account it could occur over a different period of time. supervisor campos: i think that's part of the problem i have in understanding how complete this analysis is, because to the extent you're saying there's a possibility the length of the project could be 30 years, but the e.i.r. only analyzes up to 20 years, then how complete is the analysis? that's the question. >> again, the length of time we have chosen depends on the topic area, and some of them are shorter and some of them are longer depending on the requirements on the analysis and also our desire to present the most conservative analysis for the impacts that might occur under each topic. supervisor campos: i know my colleagues -- >> i want to repeat something mr. cooper said in his original presentation. by analyzing primarily a 20-year period,

the fiscal impact study that was reviewed by the bunt and controller's office, shows a buildout to approximately $17.5 million annually. supervisor elsbernd: and what tax increment would allow us to do potentially is dedicate a portion of that to transit improvements and potentially bond against that amount, correct? >> that is correct, supervisor. in fact, the policy that this board adopted -- i think it's approximately two months ago related to infrastructure financing districts, suggesting that programs this project would be eligible. >> if i could i'd like to add one more part of the financial. this project is unlike a lot of the developments until recently that we have money which ends up going to the revenue stream. i think that matters to the federal government to look and see the stream associated with the development. supervisor elsbernd: just to wrap up then, in response to the questioning that supervisor avalos laid out to the planning department and the answers they provided. i'm hoping that what this dialogue just presented is that, in fact, only with a project like this is there an

said, what dole -- role do you see the fcc and federal government in trying to spur some wireless buildout in some of these rural areas? >> guest: some of the things i'm proud of we're doing, we just a couple of -- about a week or so ago in terms of a pole attachment order, i know that sounds boring to some, but that will provide for more access, more opportunity for providers to attach their infrastructure, you know, the means to provide service to a pole, to an existing pole. and, again, that would provide for more communication opportunities. we're doing a lot of things by way of universal service reform through the joint boards and the like and attempting to modernize the system in order to include broadband as a part of the mix. the way we're communicating is changing, and we are changing with it. so what we're attempting to do is encourage public/private partnerships that work, we are, we're doing that in the wake of. >> -- of shrinking government money to go exactly where we want it to go, so what we're trying to do is encourage all these things in concert in order to enhance the co

it's a 20-year buildout, and $6 to $8 gasoline will take care of a lot of problems, which we might very well see at the time this is finishing being built. and then on the question we've heard some stuff on the seismic issues, a tsunami. in a former life i was a geologyist. those are engineering calculations, not environmental impacts. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners and directors. i'm peter, representing the san francisco planning and urban research association. spur has been supportive of this project for many years. we work very hard to make sure that the density increased enough to allow for commercial and for ferries and so on, which it wouldn't have in the original project design. so we urge you to support the -- vote for the e.i.r. and the other items on this agenda. and i want to point out that treasure island is very special because there's no other land in san francisco where you can create a wonderful 21st century sustainable transit-oriented neighborhood. because we're out of land. so this is the opportunity to show the world what we can do with o

playing in spurring with wireless buildout in the rural areas? >> some of the things that i am proud of that we're doing, we did a week or so ago in terms of a pole attachment order. i know that sounds a little boring to some. what that will do is provide for more access, provide for more opportunity for our providers to attach their the -- provided service to existing poles and that will provide more communication opportunities. we're doing a lot of things by the way of universal service reform through the joint boards and the like and attempting to modernize the system in order to include a broadband as a part of the mix. the way we're communicating is changing and we are changing with it. so what we're attempting to do is encourage public-private partnerships that work. we're doing that the wake of shrinking government ability to put money exactly where we wanted it, want it to go. and so what we're doing is trying to encourage all of these things in concert in order to enhance the consumer experience. those things are important. >> is the f.c