the street scape master plan, for example, that's listed here, the parks and open space master plan, are all approved by tida board and not the commission. i would think that street-wise we would want to maintain some power over that. it doesn't mention here and i couldn't find it elsewhere that for example the conceptual parks and open space master plan would be referred to the rec. park department. i think it mentioned the art commission, but in any case, you know, that could have been in some corrections or somewhere but i do not support the idea that the tida board -- nothing against the tida board, but conceptionualy that the tida board then has land use controls apart from the planning commission.

and there are various smaller things in here that have to do with the number of days, but those are minor objections of mine. and then the d for d, i have some minor comments here. it seems to me the marina is adjacent to the large promenade area that has no parking. i'm not a sailor but i have gone sailing with people and they bring a lot of stuff with them and if you're serious about staying out on the bay, bring coolers and other things and it would seem that

it would seem that people would want to drive right to the slip to unload all of the stuff. it does not seem like that kind of provision has been made. this is chapter 04 0.1 0.4. this is mentioned in the eir work. previews of the historical buildings would be done by the title board. the city has something called proposition j, which affected the charter. it would be interesting to me,

not tonight, but i believe this is in the past. at some point, we could examine the relationship with proposition j and what it gives the historic preservation commission jurisdiction over. i think dsud is trying to say that all of the regulations of the city are not applicable. proposition j was a charter amendment. i would like to understand how that works. there is an interesting scenario that might happen. i believe that if this goes forward, the planning commission still has jurisdiction over some aspects of home development.

if that development work to affect a historical resource, you might want to contemplate that and figure out how that scenario might be resolved. all right. i am almost through. on the development agreement, i had a question. -- that had to do with a section that had to deal with internal rates for the developer. i thought for a moment about the way it was being presented.

if it were possible for the developer to reach those thresholds, then they could reach that level. the way it was worded, if they reached the 25% sun devils, there would be some actions taken and they would have to pay into a fund. i forget exactly what it was. at the 18% level, they would need to bring it back to 18%. if the developer reached 22.5%, they would have to bring back to 22%. that seems farcical at this point. they would be more or less guaranteed 25% at this point. i did talk to somebody who knows more about this stuff. perhaps some members of the

board have been instructed on this more. he satisfied me that this particular concern of mine has gone away. we will not get into it in detail tonight. if anybody wants to ask the developer, he is a member of the public, what his understanding is. with respect to developers, i think that they should do so. the other questions had to do with the powers of the city overall and what the city's restrictions are. i know there is some language that says that since there have been general plan changes, even

though the general plan applies, it seems to indicate that there are some restrictions on what the interpretation of the general plan has to be on planning and land use decisions. i think that is right. that seems to be extremely -- i do not know the right word. if the housing element were changed in the future, there were policies that conflicted with the plan. those would not apply. that does nothing to apply. on ballot measures the way it would read, it would be passed

by the voters. the island become some sort of anti in itself. this can be done by this commission on the board of supervisors. >> commissioner miguel. >> i would like to thank them for the amount of work that they put in. as well as the rest of the staff. who has control over what? >> thank you, commissioner.

commissioners sugaya raised some important issues. when this was a redevelopment project, the land use of gordy was lifted from the planning commission and the planning department. in this case, we are not adopting the redevelopment plan. the land use and jurisdiction remains with the planning department. what is getting complicated is that this is also the trustee for the public trust. they have authority over trust lands. that is in essence were all of the development or most of the

development is happening. these are all being built on non trust lands. these are the various plans that have been laid out here. >> could you explain how a d4d in this or any other instance in which is used is affected by future changes in legislation? >> the development agreement that is before you blocks in the entitlements, recognizing that this project is going to be built over 15-20 years. there is the recognition that you are going to take time, but you are a entitling the project

now. fifth the city comes in and says we want to reduce all heights down to 40 feet, that would not affect this project. it would not have an effect on this project. >> basically an entitlement contract. in this instance, it is over a longer period of time. that being said, i would like to go back to something that john paul mentioned in our earlier item when we talked about change. to me, what a planning department and commission does is to affect change. we are and trimming -- instrument of change. this project is a perfect example. this was envisioned as an

airport. probably john stuart, i do not know if he is still in the room, we may have been the only two that were there at the fair. and still remember it. i served my naval air duties at hangar two. they change from the previous period when i had my business, i did at all of my party is at the chapel at the officer's club. now we are considering another change. that is exactly what planning does. it a effectuates change. this is an evolution. this is the way things happen. i do not find it unusual at all

that we are contemplating these massive acres of recreation and open space land of a community of up to 8000 units where we complained that we are supposed to come up for san francisco, absorber population. we complain that we have no place to put them. here is a place to put it. and to be able to design, rather than struggle with a little infill here, a little infill there. to design something and have control of it. this is in the long run. with that, i am satisfied with

the work that has been done. i am particularly pleased with the work of the department. i would like to move items two a-h. >> second. >> i would like to have a couple of or comments to the fact that we develop the plan. today, we are looking at the the infrastructure of financing the district plan with the caveat that this is supposed to be an area plan. i would also like to say that the development agreements were written for projects which were far more designed and explicit about the intent about what they were trying to do. this is specific architecturally. it is delineated to this project.

this project is designed to a level of the sketch diagram at best. i believe the agreement should be structured so that any future changes should apply to phases of development which have not received project approval from the planning commission. we have been working diligently over the past few years. they have worked to transform core planning code to a more effective tool of raising sustainable communities. we have stubborn pockets of antiquated zoning. we should not recreate this unhappy state of affairs with the development agreement. future phases should conform to their current code requirement. this should reflect the most

recent on special area plans, the ones that i just mentioned. i would like to comment on the shortcomings. and moving all of these things into one motion. this requires massive commitments of the funding code and the general plan among many others. this alone requires a high degree of scrutiny and accountability for all regulating documents including the document which guides the design of the project and divine -- the sign for development. in reviewing this document, it requires more than simply reading it. that requires physical testing. you can see if networks. i had to spend a little bit of

time. i chose blocks 6b and 6a, which i chose for the purpose of this review. these blocks were chosen randomly. this shows that that they are incomplete. the few guidelines that are examined raise different questions. they require direction and supervision of others, more detailed guidelines. they will set out for light projects. i request that each guideline that is summarized can be checked against current code. they would enable current guidelines and practice.

for a project, this would take more than 20-30 years to be fully realized. i have further requests that more specific guidelines be given for the open space. building articulations and variety with the ability as it is known in san francisco neighborhoods. i further regret, i do not think this document does this at the moment, i further request that specific guidelines are developed for the consultation plan. the guidelines as they stand should be defined themselves that the heights required do not apply to designing the kind of

buildings that i just described. they totally missed the point. they do not address the issues of coverage and mid blocked open space or any of the things which we care about. i have applied these guidelines. i will submit them for your own review. i am not here to criticize you. these guidelines do not work. i am not comfortably supporting that we are designing this quality. >> commissioner borden. >> a few questions for staff. >> we are not a party to the planning agreement. >> the development agreement you are party to.

>> for the design 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