simenon, roll call on item. -- seeing none, roll call on item. >> we need a motion. >> seconded. >> [roll call] item 12 is approved. item 13. approving the minutes of the november 10, 2011 meeting. the members of the public wanted to comment on the item. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> no members of the public wanted to comment. all in favor? any opposed? seeing none, i will approve the minutes. if you would like, we could go back to the other items. director kim: acknowledging that two members need to leave, we will not have a quorum, which we do not need for these items, suggesting that we move item 8 to the january board of directors meeting, which i support. >> we can do that, but we have to present item nine. director kim: please call item 9. >> presentation of the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended june 30, 2011 and report to the board of directors. >> this will be a quick item. this is our eighth consecutive year of having clean, unqualified audit opinions on our financial statements. before i introduce our auditor to address you, i just want to thank ou

simenon, -- c nine -- seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> in an earlier form, this did not pass. as staff has pointed out, what is before us today is not a recommendation. this is the recommendation of the general amendment that would increase heights in part of the plan. there will be plenty of time to decide whether this is appropriate or not. if you do not initiate, you cannot have a discussion. if you do not initiate based on what the plan has been designed for, you have to initiate at the height asked for and then have a discussion. i do not think you can go up, but obviously you can go down. i do have some questions. if i could speak to the representative from the port, great. >there was some talk. one of the speakers early on talk about infrastructure financing and support getting the increment that cannot exceed 65%. i am not sure exactly how it is structured. is that a correct assessment? >> comment suggested the port planned on receiving 100% of the increments. this would be the second attempt to set up an ifd. first one was the