for development, that is something can evolve. the design is correct? >> this can be evolved to the extend that any proposed changes do not have the basic vested raises in the agreement. >> there are some of the structural issues that the commissioner has raised. those things will go to the future bank does not work. >> the commission is the body that has the authority. >> we still have that discretion. we actually have a greater discretion than we would have in

the previous iteration. what is the percentage of trust land versus non trust land? >> most of the development is happening on non trust land under state land rules. you cannot build housing on trust property. >> architecture should increase with this change, not decrease. we will have properties coming before us on a regular basis. >> you have no land use jurisdiction. >> the current version of the 8000 housing units in the general open space, was that approved it? >> yes, it was. >> the project has evolved. a lot of stuff has happened.

the basic structure of this project including design for development, which did not change as much as the chair -- planning mechanism has been voted on and supported by various bodies over the last several years. >> this has been an evolving document. it has been before the planning commission for comment. but we are establishing a floor. this is an opportunity for finances to work out, correct? >> we are actively working to try to change state law. to increase the amount of an

increment available on this. if those changes were to happen, we would increase the amount of affordable housing. >> it would be disadvantageous if it were to become a redevelopment site. if something happened, we would actually lose jurisdiction. that is just a question, i think. >> we could put this in the planning code. it has been consistent. we have a series of projects that will come to us along the way. the other thing that i thought was interested is the issue of the statement overriding considerations is that there is

a quality of life for the current residence on the island that we are overlooking. amenities exists for those people that live on the island today. without those improvements, we are putting them in great jeopardy. to do nothing actually hurts the quality of life and has a greater impact on the people living there. they have the opportunity to improve their quality of life. we have a great need for housing. i personally prefer the 30%. i hope we can get to that 30%. 25% is still better than 0%. 300 acres of open space is a net benefit. improvements for those people on the island. from my standpoint, i see that

this is a need to plan, if not for the people who live there, then a greater impact for the general plan. they are more affordable housing and recreation and open space. there are other elements of their general plan. it seems very logical that this project would be the negative impacts are outweighed by the larger general plans that come from it. the byproduct of was gaining general jurisdiction in the planning department is a greater thing in trying to conform to the overall planning code. we can improve those areas that do not exactly work today. this is an important designation that is in these documents. the biggest thing that has changed is this.

i know the project has been around for 10 years. that threw us for a loop. i do not think that doing nothing will be a better alternative. it does not seem that in the near future that a better alternative will exist. gang it does exist, they will be able to take advantage of that and move forward. i am very comfortable with approving the findings and the overall project. i think the net benefits will outweigh the negative impacts that have unidentified here. that puts us in a position to doom more planning around this. if this developer and stop the developer, we know that this is an exact -- and an excellent example. when the developer went away, somebody took up all of those

obligations in that plan. the nature of the development agreement is that that is how it works. we locked in some greater benefits. there might be some advantages of things that have not changed. that sounds to me that things in the development agreement are not things that we care about. >> and i wanted to thank staff for all of their work. as one of the speakers mentioned, we are to gauge the impact of the project. the overriding consideration should be measured by the impacts of the project. we are not there yet. already just a few of the impacts of the project. i am getting sleepy.

i will try to keep it brief. i wanted to try to make it known what some of those impacts are, even though this is a public document and people can go to the website to request this document from our department. a couple of examples. the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative congestion in downtown san francisco which would increase travel time and increase operation of muni. it would contribute to downtown congestion in san francisco. the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative congestion in downtown san francisco, which would increase travel time.

the proposed project would contribute to cumulative congestion in downtown san francisco, which would increase travel time. implementation of the proposed project parking supply maximum would exacerbate the capacity utilization standard on muni's treasure island bus line. the project related construction activities would increase noise levels above existing ambient conditions. hopefully, you do not fall asleep during this period construction activities cannot expose them to ground born noise level or vibration. construction of the proposed project -- increases in traffic from the project would result

in cumin the tiv noise increases. project related construction activities in combination of other cumulative development would increase noise levels above the existing ambient conditions. those are just a few that i read. that is seven or eight out of over 30. identified and packs. the level of significance after litigation is still significant and unavoidable. that is not something that i would continue to subject residents of this city to. i made mention of this before as far as this is concerned. i am just going toquote from his letter. i have never made any secrets

about my view that this project is over park. the residential parking ratio, one parking space per dwelling unit is too high. it would make this an unsustainable subdivision. the ratio should match that of most these in neighborhoods in the district. one for every tv appeal districts. reducing residential parking below one space per unit has proven effective as a housing affordability strategy which lowers the cost per household willing to do without a private car. nonresidential parking, the nonresidential parking ratios proposed for the project are too high. using the standards from 151.1 is fair and consistent and reduce drive alone visitor and worker trips to and from the island. as it relates to the affordable housing, we are disappointed to

see the percentage of below market rate units from 30% to 25%. the housing need in san francisco is more than 60% below market rate. this project should stick to the 30% market rate. one strategy that should be explored is to reduce overhead costsof the total project cost presented in the discussion, 6% is for marketing and management. 4% for planning and entitlement. these line items can be reduced and in some cases, and eliminated. the windfall can be translated back into affordable housing. i realize that these are issues that can be raised that the board. these have not been resolved yet. they will not be before the night is over.

although redevelopment is not completely over and may never be, i realize that the project sponsor does feel somewhat uncomfortable or insecure about where the governor might be going with this issue. they prefer to go the ifd route. it does lessen the obligation of the developer as it relates to affordable housing in the city where we have clearly identified the need. i come from the working class. i understand the struggles of working families. we have untitled thousands of units of housing in san francisco over the last several years. many that labour have come out and been forced to endorse. just because we do entitle a development, it does not always

end up in the labour force. some people do benefit from the entitlements that they receive here. it is not always the labor force. at some point, the planning department needs to look at some of those projects that we have untitled. they are moving forward slowly. we have been titled eastern neighborhoods. there have been several individual projects that we have untitled on 10th and market. the list goes on. i have not seen any of those projects break ground. there will be plenty of jobs in place for the work force. they will be moved ahead. i hope to see these projects move ahead. sooner rather than later. from what i can remember, if we moved ahead on and lot of the

projects, we have entitled to a lot of labor is being employed now. that is the case. in my sandbox to day, i got a letter from supervisor daily that i want us to read into the record. people can say what they will about him. he was a real force in making sure that there was an equitable -- that equity was included in the issues in the development. the proposed treasure island. the board adopted a term sheet for treasure island.

that call for 30%. this was by the office of the board. this was an increase in density and development. only 2840 units of housing were contemplated for treasure island. in 2010, after significant deliberation with the office of housing, i supported an amendment term sheet that increase the unocal out to 8000 units, but maintained the 30% affordability. this is a proposal to undermine good faith negotiations that my office and the board of supervisors has had with the previous may oral administration and the project sponsors over the course of five years.

this would reduce the affordable housing to 17%. affordable housing has been a hot-button issue for many years. the project sponsor tried to suspend the renegging on our deal that they have not taken away yet. this has been historically focused on concentration and affordability. the high density of development comes with many unmitigated traffic, the static, noise and biological impacts. allowing the development to move for it means make sure -- making sure that the positive and outweighs the negative. and the community benefits means the at the negatives outweigh

the positives. i just wanted to put that in for the record. that gives me an overview of some of my views. i wanted to make view that commissioner antonini is celebrating his birthday with us. he is showing his dedication. we all studied the same facts. sometimes i go there and he goes here. we all try to work respectfully with each other. commissioner moore. >> i wanted to express my appreciation of you summarizing what some of the challenges are. this is in response to the phenomenal work that is going on. there is a chapter which i believe that they need to see in writing.

that is best addressed on page 323 document review. at this time, it says content to be developed. i have approved numerous references to what the planning commission is supposed to do. this only applies to that day when the moon is in aquarius. this makes me feel like a scientist in the arctic who goes to sleep in one place at night and waking up 6 miles off the ball drifted away. a liquid so well, i do not know where we are. i have tried to piece together statements you have made. i cannot make sense out of it.

we are proving governments as well. not that we object to working harder. approving what is in front of me, i am unable to do that. >> thank you for the birthday greeting. i think that entitlement as a good thing if it is a deserving projects.

we had a lot to the cost through some of their fees and process. commissioners sugaya still has a comment. is on the tied up web site. this is appendix a2.

i do have it on my little thing. in terms of looking at this, if that were a redevelopment agency, we do not have any power. you have turned this on its head. this is an area plan. the city should retain jurisdiction. >> some folks do benefit from development and entitlements in this work force. >> if i made on the motion. i would like can to maketypo corrections as you move forward.

>> for some reason, my microphone has gone off. the motion is on the floor for adoption. for i atoms2a-h >> aye. aye >>. >> aye. >> no.

>> the motion passed 4-3. >> thank you. >> commissioners -- i guess the meeting is adjourned. are we adjourned? >> you are adjourned.