it's been stated by a few people i know what a landmark looks like. i would say i don't and none of us do but we're learning. we share the city with different social and culture groups and they're introducing what a landmark is to us every year and that's the exciting park about san francisco. but unfortunately, sometimes people are focusing on the city as a play of profit, of money making and not as a resident. i think the question raised in north beach question is interesting in illustrating. by voting to go ahead with a proposed library, you opened up other preservation questions, the view corridor, baseball field. what are you going to do about those? these are new issues. if perhaps you listened to the h.p.c., you wouldn't have these two. solve one problem maybe but have

two new problems ma may come back to haunt you. >> thank you. now it's time to sing. >> i have graphics too, please. ♪ what happened to the city we knew when you were landing and dealing in the item like you do iester you,iester city me yesterday where did it go that preservation glow when you were going to fix it up so good , you would,iester me,iester you, yesterday

now it seems the city dreams were going to fix it up history and save it like in the use all your tools, yester you are, yester city day, yesterday. yester you, yester me, yesterday. >> thank you. next speaker. >> mary ann miller. i'm not on your list but thought i would step up. i would once a city planner with the planning department and we didn't have the tools we had today. we have computers. we have people who understand the historic context. at one point we have the downtown plan with its historic context, unquestionable. because there were landmark

buildings but we as a city were not like denver for my real terrible example, which tore down everything except the landmark and they tore out the context. once you remove the context, that thread of history that unites even meet ork buildings, it's true. with the historic buildings, you lost it and lost a sense of history. that's happened also in the neighborhoods where a four-story building pops up where there are just 1 1/2-story tiny vic torrians in the richmond, for example. and it's just a shocker when you see it. i don't know how you do the transitions but the context, don't forget about the thread. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> is there any other speaker. >> thank you very much. i'm a san francisco general

kshter and i specialize in historic restore anges preservation. as such i'm a person in an ideal position to be impacted by delays or feared negative effects of the planning department or procedures that we go through. i have found that the planning department is full of quite intelligence, very helpful people. they have done a great deal to help streamline the processes of getting c.f.a. and other things along the lines. most documents and relative items a person needs to know seem to be readily available on the website. all in all i think you should support restoration and preservation in the city. it's vittal tour sense of community. it is title to us economically. not all of the benefits can be measured in terms of the tangible developers look at. i hope you give support to the historic preservation commission and would further thrike add to

protests that it was not given more time to refute thing that's have been said here today. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i just want to -- since you're the second person who raised that, we had i think three historic preservation commissioners testify and they all received more time than they would have as regular members of the public. so combined they received as much time for any of the departments except for planning. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. yes, i am going to be speaking for treasure island but i'm a native san franciscoan. and i just heard all of this been waiting here three hours. i couldn't help but get into this different subject. garages. one of the most attractive and interesting aspect of the city -- of the orlede parts of the city which we all take for granted but tourists go gaga over should be definitely thought of very creatively.

they are possible change of use to things like flower shops, assembly, poetry readings and art studios but even housing. example from sutter, from steiner to fillmore, there is such a place, garage was turned into a condo. but you go through this archway and it's all part of the garage. then behind it where you can't see it too well from the street, our housing and there's a beautiful courtyard there, wonderful use of it. i think we miss these garages. they give so. texture to the neighborhood. main thing is they were used -- my great grandmother used to reminisce about the stable boy. they were stables in the 19th century. >> thank you. appreciate it. next speaker. >> my name is zack stewart. as americans we do real well with indulgences like -- like derivatives, automobiles, pensions and not so well with

restraints, like not filling the bay. in my experience in williamsburg, stanford, university of california, mt. rainier national park and other places is projects that get studied thoroughly always come out better, the ones that are rushed through. historic preservation commission is absolutely essential to taking san francisco, which is tiny and filtering out the developers who want to do something here which are big. we need h.p.c. badly to see we come out like harvard, yale and other area universities. thank you very much.

>> next speaker. >> about afternoon. i'm peter worefield. i would like to make four points. the fairness of the hearing here is very much in question. i think the city needs more rather than less landmark review and more systematic review. i think the library has not always been a good stewart of its facilities and complexities of the process generally makes it difficult for ordinary citizens to participate or even know what's going on. with respect to the fairness of the hearing, you have given tons of time to departments, more than an hour, three to five minutes you asked mr. bueller. the framing of the question is essentially a setup for what's wrong with preservation? how about a hearing on how preservation benefits the city? you might ask other questions like how does equal opportunity employment or earthquake strengthening hurt other goals

of the city. we need more review, not less. ly not go into it. the planning department itself said the library wrecked the landmark worthiness or damaged it with respect -- >> thank you very much. >> may i speak as long as the others have? >> you had -- >> you have given other people about half a minute or 45 seconds additional. >> ten seconds. i will give you ten more seconds. >> the library according to the planning department has spoiled the landmark worthiness of some of its appleton and libraries through neglect and renovations that remove character defining features. the city itself has been the agent of destruction as cable cars, so double reviews and landmarking procedures are very valuable and important. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone for coming out today. i thought it was very thoughtful and helpful public comment

regardless of what one's position was. it was very useful. i know -- i'm sure i'm speaking for my colleagues, it was helpful. so thank you. i don't know if any of the staff wants to make any brief final remarks? >> at the time i would thank everyone for coming out. i think it gave -- the testimony gave you a good flavor of kind of balancing that we try to achieve. there are a number of things we have to, and preservation -- >> please speak directly into the microphone. >> sorry. >> the issue of culture preservation and how we move forward with that is an important aspect of this. also, i think we need to -- i think what i hear from many of the speakers and supervisors, it's not so much about whether we preserve historic buildings but process of changing those buildings and how we might streamline that.

and i'm happy to have that conversation with you, supervisors and others. >> i would be very interested in that. time and cost is one of the big things. but the other thing would be the notification around the surveys. they're trying to find ways to engage more people who would be impacted by the surveys, who may love the surveys or not like them, what everyone's point of view, it's challenging. but trying to think outside the box there. so i appreciate it. great. any further comment? so i would move to continue the item to the call of the chair. >> let's close public comment. and is there any objection to continuing to the call of the chair? seeing none, we will continue this and colleagues, i'm going to urge us to take a five-minute break and we're going to hear items 2 through 12, treasure island items. meeting is temporarily adjourned

>> the meeting will come back to order. thanks colleagues for the short break. could you please call item number 2-12 together. >> resolution adopting findings

under the guidelines. number three, ordinance amending the general plan by amending the commerce and industry -- ordinance amending the subdivision code to add the subdivision process applicable to the treasure island-yerba island site. approving the treasure island implementation plan. ordinance approving a development agreement. item number 9 resolution approving a disposition agreement for treasure island-yerba buena island. resolution approving the economic development memoranda for the transformation of the naval station to the treasure island authority.

resolution improving the amended and restated home assistance agreement. item 12 resolution between the treasure island development authority and the california state lands commission. >> thank you. i think we may be expecting supervisor kim in a moment. we have a number of planning staff here to give a short presentation before we jump right into public comment. >> rich hillis from the office of workforce development. you have had this project before you several times, we wanted to highlight the items before you today. the project is an entire redo of treasure island, basically a

new neighborhood with associated commercial and retail uses. the land plan is here and documented. these are the 11 items before the board. four of these items are before the board of supervisor budget committee next week and then hopefully to the full board. the first action is adopting ceqa findings. taking into consideration the many public benefits. in those public benefits briefly you have heard about our new infrastructure, over $400 million spent to upgrade the islands, make improvements. transportation program including a $30 million subsidy for transit on the island as

well as a new ferry terminal, buses and streets. open space around two-thirds of the island converted to new open space in various varieties from parks to the large wilds in the northeast corner of the island. there is 25% of the project of the new units dedicated to affordable housing with the hopes to get back up there through state legislation. they are working to affect community facilities. a new police and fire station. renovated public school. job opportunities, we have talked a lot about that. up to 2,000 construction jobs

and 3,000 permanent jobs to low income and formally homeless. the development agreement is the second item before you. a contract between the city and the developers that basically locks in the entitlements that we are working on today, recognizing it is a long-term development project. this item will be before the budget committee next week. subdivision code recognizing the process of accepting the new infrastructure and interagency cooperation agreement where the city family and city agencies will opine on the portions being built on the islands. you are being asked to endorse the transportation implementation program talking about mitigating and encouraging residents and

visitors not to use cars but to use other modes of transportation as well as the developer requirements for building the ferry terminal. the disposition and development agreement is the core document, the transaction document. it lays out howland is transferred. it talks about remedies and the final terms. attached is the housing plan and financial plan and our commitments to affordable housing on the island. that will be before the budget committee next week. >> in that item 9 is that also the agreements on the transfers of land as well? >> right. as well as the navy agreement will transfer the land from the navy.

we talked about such an agreement between other city agencies to review and accept infrastructure. it is a long-standing partnership that we have that started when the federal government announced that the base is going to be closed. the navy conveyens agreement is a long negotiated agreement we will pay the navy $55 million as a base payment and an additional $15 million depending on certain participation levels and again in the d.d.a. obligates the developer to make these payments. this will be before the budget committee next week.

because treasure island is encumbered by the public trust because we want to build housing on treasure island, that is not an allowable use under the guidelines so we are doing swaps to transfer it to parks and open space. i will turn it over to josh to cover the planning code and zoning items. >> good afternoon supervisors. among the several items that have been forwarded to you, including in the general plan, i will touch on them briefly. the adoption of a new area plan for treasure island-yerba buena island as well as a series of amendments to various elements of the general plan and various maps and figures to include the

islands in the general plan. the planning code amendments include the adoption of a and use district to govern vertical development on the island as a height and bulk district and zoning map amendments to apply these on the maps. i will go over the special use district briefly. it contains all of the key regulations for building envelopes for vertical development on the island. all development is subject to regulation by the planning department but for those zones that are subject to tida approval. the planning code is supplemented by a design for development document that contains design standards and guidelines to regulate vertical development on the island. in terms of the process for review and approval, the

planning director has the authority to approve all vertical development on the island. the planning commission does have a a review of new large vertical development buildings. it would require a public hearing at the planning commission to provide comment on the design. the planning director would approve or disapprove the projects based on that comment. the planning commission does have discretionary approval, or exceptions to the standards in the design for development. so they would be vested with the authority to deny or approve those modifications as well as specific land use

spelled out which would require conditional use approval. so it sets forth a process that includes the process for tida to review projects in the public trust areas and the ability to comment on those and provide comment as part of their review. so i went through that process. i guess with that it concludes our presentation. we are happy to answer any questions. >> i am wondering if any staff were go to report on the transportation? >> here is a resource to help with issues or clarifications i can offer. i know we had questions about the reduction from 30 fors 25%.

i know questions were raise body it. we have the director of the mayor's office of housing. if you can give us more specifics of the work at the state level and even as concrete as possible what we are doing to insure we will raise the 25% base to 30% if the money comes in from the state. >> i'm sorry if i missed the previous questions, i was outside. it is disappoint to get to this stage and lose this percentage as a core baseline. i think a couple of things are at work in the document. one, the ability in the event that we are successful with state legislation whether i.f.c. legislation or the passage of an act or if redevelopment were to continue to create a status for the

island to be able to buy back to the place where we would be at 30%. that window exists within the currently drafted ordinance before you. those are the two best options we have in front of us. you can make sure that the choice is one where it will be at your discretion or our discretion. the other big piece with the developer and everybody else trying to figure out all of the different pieces of state legislation that there are. there are two pieces of development legislation. one related to affordable housing and the other related to the money which we see as fairly critical if they moved through in may that would hopefully be a good way to head off a dissolution in june, which we are still worried about. the other two i would say we

are really trying to make sure that we get that legislation as strong as possible so in the event that they do move forward with the threat to basically dissolve the redevelopment agency that we have choices within the legislation. i don't think there is within piece of legislation anyone can rest their hod right now. there is too much uncertainty in sacramento. >> if there is no other presentation i have a stack of about 40 cards. i am limiting people to a minute each. i will call them in groups of 10-15. sherry williams, karen pierce from the treasure island c.a.c. bernie choden. stephanie mueller.

becky hogue. mark connors and chantel denochio. >> >> good evening. i am the executive director of the treasure island homeless development initiative. you have before you 16 years of public planning. they are supportive of moving this project forward and restoring the affordable house to 30%. we do not think the approval of this project should be held up during the state wide process. the development of treasure island is and will be complicated. the utility infrastructure redone and so on. the longer we wait to get to

work, the longer the clear benefits of the project will be delayed. 2,000 units of affordable housing. the ability to reach 400 more affordable housing units and thousands of jobs, including significant training and job opportunity. so we urge you to support this project and move it out of committee today. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. we have been involved in planning this project for several years. we are proud of the work we did with the department of public health. our concerns on the parking, which i think you will hear from others, have been addressed largely by work we have helped to bring in

congestion pricing for the island. this will be the first in the state, i believe with any congestion pricing. we think that is a credible way to meter car trips on and off the island. we will make it quite expensive and if necessary more expensive. we look forward to having a great new walkable, bikeable neighborhood in the bay. thank you. >> there is a serious problem here and i am going to focus on the ownership of treasure island that underpins the security of the development. there are two ways to proceed on this. one is recognizing the underlying state title as wetlands preferred to the state