the parking session in detail. but the purpose of running through this relatively fast was that it reminds the commission in broad brush strokes with the major components of the project are so that we can start an overview of the development agreement and you will understand how that is structured and how that would be implemented over time. commissioner olague: there is always this kind of rhetoric about creating a transitory and the development. how do we mean that in real terms? not just rhetorical. if we are looking at the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, i think that is what we are aiming for.

is there a correlation between car ownership and all of these other goals that are being highlighted were prioritized or p -- highlighted or prioritized? i am wondering does the department have any kind of policy papers that discuss how that relates to the reduction of the carbon footprint?

how does it relate to all of the above? >> we don't have a specific policy paper on that exact question. we have addressed the question of parking and housing in the transit neighborhoods to encourage transit usage. about that specifically, there are residential parking ratios at 1:1. not just in the sense that we talked about unbundling normally, the drugs -- the garages are pooled and the parking is on the western side

of the sidte so each building won't be on top of a garage. more than half of the units are on the eastern side and more than half of the parking is on the western side. an amenity would be there, but it would be set up so that it would be encouraging use of other modes as the most convenient. >> the general policy has been the direction we have taken with the commission's support is that the closer you are to transit and high-capacity transit, a less parking you have. in general terms, that is why the diagram is set up the way it is. there is less parking on that

side. it is less than 1 per 1 that is farther away from transit. commissioner olague: i guess as commissioner antonini mention ed, the neighbors are concerned about their lifestyles. they mentioned presidio and being relocated. i want to hear a little bit more about the relocation planning for this. >> that was one of the topics that we are going to get into detail on december 9. commissioner olague: ok. great. commissioner moore: i was going to charge in there for the sake of the discussion, this is not an attack on the project, but just clearing the discussion.

car-centric is what applies to many neighborhoods in san francisco. the city is not developed around high-rise living in the center. what we see here is a community which starts to emulate a person having a large amount of open space being able to reach nearby cities. i don't want to use the negative words about it. who might say that today, but it doesn't really mean anything. i am looking at the investment

into a rather extreme part -- a majority of tall buildings sits far away and you can diagram it without yourself here. while everything is in walking distance, it is for people that are used to cars and much more difficult to define. it takes a lot to retrofit suburbia. it takes a helluva lot. we see that in parts of the outlying suburbs, and urbanization is a difficult thing to come by. i am perhaps in support of commissioner antonini, it is not that convincing to me.

i have not seen how we will create a brand new urban skyline. it pretty much looks like a cookie cutter way of putting up some new buildings. i like the larger framework ideas. however, we have not substantially changed the suburban framework of the basic idea of how to create this community. we have not really challenged the overall configuration. the problem of the site is that it is at a regular sight and it is hard to retrofit. more rectangular sides, there is a higher yield of efficiency that is easier to retrofit. you might introduce a whole new street geometry had to make it a little bit more accessible. how we have not really changed the plan. i asked a bunch of questions

about distance from transportation investment, the effectiveness of identification spread out through the side in order to really justify it. including the ability to implement transit in the form to make the entire neighborhood -- close would be some of the questions of like to hear more from from you. this is not slamming the door of the project, but i believe the project yesterday massaged. -- has to be massaged. this particular project happened in the offices of good architects, but it hasn't gone through the challenge of when you have an accountable public

authority helping complete the plan like treasure island or hunters point. >> just to follow up on that, a think that when we were discussing this at the other meeting in terms of having additional information hearings before getting into the initiation, there was discussion about the fact that this is a proposal that is being put forth by a developer which means it is a project versus the kind of thing that commissioner moore just mentioned, a neighborhood plan. this is a huge area with lots of existing housing units, and from the commission's perspective, and we are trying to look at it

from a neighborhood development perspective which kind of clash as a little bit with thinking about it as a developer project. i think we are trying to struggle with that. i am glad that we're having these meetings because it gives us another chance to gain perspective even though we have some other informational hearings. just a couple of comments on some other aspects of this, and the phasing aspect i think is important. i think in the overview, he will give us -- i think phasing is a very interim goal part of the agreement so i will be able -- we will be able to cover that. but maybe with some of the overall aspects of that are. it is important for the commission to about how that

works with respect to the development in the public improvements in benefits that developers have in their program and how it works. >> i have a question -- not a question, just an observation. we are saying that there are 1500 permanent jobs. that is what the project is going to bring, but i don't think that is a net gain figure. in my mind, it would be 1500 is nice, but maybe there are 1600 been out. i don't think there are, so these are not exactly that figures. it is a 50% reduction, and i assume that means 50% from

today's figures. but we are adding 5000 bits. -- units. >> those are baseline standards if development is just sort of a generic development somewhere in the city. >> it just calls and the question beatrix of energy and everything because we are adding so much more density and some much more square footage in terms of commercial -- >> they are meant to be per- capita reductions. >> in terms of the earlier hearing, what we had today on the student housing initiative, the project is -- there might be

some consideration given to the whole idea and it is ideally located next to the university. you might want to take a look at that initiative. it might be good if we took a look at that. and then following up on commissioner moore, the terms of housing densities and the relationship to transit's and the commercial center, a think the director pointed out that there are reduced parking requirements, which is fine. i was looking at the density -- at the height proposals on this building presentation, and there

might be consideration given to even increasing more and clustering some of the density around the commercial and transit which is further to the east of the property. i know that indication of eight stories seemed to be clustered in that direction. there might be more consideration to even more density in that area. and in terms of commissioner antonini's comment, i think we have a lot of that similar kind of thing on treasure island at the moment, and later on, perhaps -- is there going to be a little bit more detail? >> will get into more detail on the next presentation. >> part of that is how will be managed and how it is going to work. i don't think it will be totally

given over to the community. >> that was not the intention. >> and don the realignment, can we have the presentation? there'll be some additional information on buses and bus routes in addition to the light itself? i think that is about all i have for the moment. i appreciate the presentation. commissioner antonini: first on mention of sustainable landscape and native species and that kind of thing, we have battled for a hundred and 60 years to reclaim the heart of san francisco from nature because the native species was sand and an occasional week. it took a lot to get past that, and it was quite an

accomplishment. but we put down topsoil and we put down on golden gate park plantings and things like that to keep it down into manageable. i think you have to go kind of like on that kind of thing because unless it is very well maintained, it is going to look bad and it will be a very unpleasant environment because we have our share of the fog and heavy wind out there. eat something that is well maintained. you can't expect each individual person to maintain their own areas. that is the first thing. on parking, you have to look at the context of what surrounds the lake. it is entirely single-family housing detached neighborhoods. anything that is too drastic is

going to be really difficult and probably not appealing because if somebody wants to walk a significant distances to get to their car, which probably will do this on the east side of town. part of the reason they are there is the conveniences that are afforded them. you're going to have to look at that closely, and i think you're going to need a 1-1 parking to keep people there and you'll probably need parking fairly close to where they're living. and they will not be dragging them across many acres to get to their house. there will be some that will not have cars and there'll be some who will do that, but i don't think it will be as high as you think. you have to look at that very carefully. those are a couple of things. i am interested in hearing what else you have for tonight.

commissioner moore: i would like to challenge the position of towers in the west side of the site. i have great problems with just soldiering up and set of creating a checkerboard pattern. i think he was partly responsible for this diagram. i think is a great intensification to start letting things of which creates more of a wall effect. since we are looking in that direction, i am greatly concerned with these arrangements mean to the definition of what is supposed to be an open space. but we're talking about 14 stories or levin's story buildings and a think it will create a situation that is

difficult to understand. you can take this all the way through the plan, and i want to reflect for a moment. we're surrounded by low-scale, car-oriented neighborhoods. i think the assertion of that is quite troubling to me, because there is no relief except for the open space which is already on its own right there for a moment. the number of units that we are bringing to the side exceeds what is proposed for treasure island. i wanted to say that and let that stand in the room because it is not the end. while i believe in more transit- oriented development, i think

the retrofitting of the suburbia has to occur around it being more gradual and parts of the sites and be more responsive to the setting. >> her last comments because it echoes of my thoughts. the site has to be intensified, there is no question about it. the ecological situation out there is not good, it hasn't been good, and it is not sustainable. in my opinion, it is a bit overdone. it is a bit too much in intensification. i think the scattering of buildings, the way it is laid

out so far, it means to be worked. i agree with commissioner moore as to the lot of buildings which do not, in my mind, create a good landscape for good land-use plan. i don't know because i have not seen it yet, but they take shadows and the consideration as far as the open space? i don't want to go as deep into debt as studies, and don't mean that as we have had to do in some areas, but i am not seeing anything of that in particular at the moment. to me, the volume of units has

to be considered a little more than it is valid. a of of the would go so far haas commissioner antonini with townhouses. a little more variety here, perhaps, and i will agree that unlike areas such as in manhattan, the idea of going as far to get into one's car is not going to go over well in this area. item think it goes well anywhere in san francisco, you tell someone they have to walk a couple blocks to their car storage, and that is about 11 of anyone that i know of.

used are going for the the matter, which is what i see, i might be wrong. i think that has to be taken into consideration. commissioner sugaya: if the staff could indulge me in one small analysis, it is always deceiving to look at something like this and try to figure out what the actual density is across the entire area. it could be fairly low. i don't know. it isn't the observations by other commissioners about the

surrounding neighborhoods are attached single-family dwellings which produces -- and this will be interesting to see what is that part merced. although it has high-rises and what not, which breaks the pattern.

the north beach area is fairly densely packed. anyway, just a comment. >> michael pros today presentation and this would continue over the next couple of hearings.

>> does this supersede those given previously the. if anyone would like to see how the documents more vaulting, you will be able to track them on the web site.

good evening, commissioners. >> this will probably be located where? >> i believed at an auditorium at s.f. state. thank you for holding out. i will try to be brief. it will be helpful to go over the highlights. i would like to address the

issues such as the density. this is surprisingly low by san francisco kosh -- san francisco standards. these are within the range of what we consider a normal neighborhood. in fact. 21 is low. >> before i launched into this presentation, there is a question about what sort of meetings and interactions that happened the. i would offer a list of those meetings and contacts. we can certainly post this on

the web site as well. from november, 2006 to the present day, there has been about 176 formal schedule of meetings between the city and county of san francisco agencies and the project sponsor. the planning department has met most with the project sponsor, approximately 70 that we have documented. 36 with our office, 13 with the public utilities commission. i mentioned this to let you know that there has been a lot of setting and work and also the plant documents that we distributed. the division