the developer will submit an open space master plan as part of that procedure. >> i am thinking specifically of the housing development. there were discussions on how to organize for the town houses, the landscaping and so on. >> just a point of

clarification, i think commissioner more was referring to something that is currently not in there. it is an attachment. when we moved to san sud plan we had taken what was previously in the deer-dap. we took them out of the design for element and they are now in the sud. the deerdap you are now approving includes the development plan and the parks and open space plan. >> for vertical development, there is quite a bit of detail. there was quite a bit in writing that was presented to us six months ago. where is that stuff? >> that is all covered in one of

the chapters that currently exists about building design. >> is that one of the things that was to be improved? the probably had not done down through all 20 lbs. of paper and found it. >> perhaps. >> perhaps. [laughter] >> because there is indeed a lot more detail in the architectural design category than would be suggested by a three page document. i was wondering where it was. there are two small amendments i would like to add to two different things, the ones i handed out earlier. the first would like to move is an amendment which i believe goes to the transportation plan in item #6. it would add to the resolution approving it. in collaboration with the developer and to the public process, ttma shall ensure that in one year building permits are

issued for the units based on the actual transportation in packs at that point. the reason for that is that when it was adequate, but i thought it could have been tighter on how the monitoring would worke, especially the transportation impacts that everybody cares about so much. there was not a public process required as a mitigation. i wanted to be sure that there would be a public process. this would be better in five years where what is actually happening will be measured. there will be an action taken. the public and the residents of the island can participate and discuss if it is not meeting its goals, if the impacts are worse than we thought they would be, what to do about it. i would like to add this monitoring amendment to that.

i will move that amendment. >> any public comment on this? >> is there a second is what you're supposed to say. >> i guess i can seconded and ask a question. >> yes. >> i am just wondering if in terms of the process and public review, having to deal with the citizen advisor board, is this something that we are going to have to now hold off on the approval so that we have to go through a process? >> no, either tid or ttma will need to prepare an update on what is actually happening with transportation, the bridge, the bus, the ferry, all of those things, and how those impacts compare to what they are

projecting. so we can see we are doing as well as we hoped for better -- hoped, or better, or worse, and then make adjustments, or successors down the road will make adjustments. >> i have a question for staff about that. what i could do or what the impact of some of the results could be. is it possible to revise the parking ratios? no. i guess i'm trying to understand what the significance -- >> obviously there would be changes to the service, changes to prices. the ingestion price the or the price of a ferry ticket -- ingestion price fee --

congestion price fee or a price of a ferry ticket. >> why is it not possible to change parking ratios? we create areas all the time that have different ratios in san francisco. why is it not possible to make that change? >> for instance, the one: one parking ratio is part of the entitlements we are approving as part of the planning commission. i think with this amendment would allow us to do is change the transportation plan, for instance, if he wanted to increase the congest geion pricg fee. >> there would be monitoring,

but it did not describe that in any more detail. i thought we need more detail that it really will be done in a, you know. >> sorry, i am confused. which item i am amending? >> this would amend the transportation and implementation plan, resolution item six. the second one -- do you want me to move the second one now? >> i had the question. your amendment is a good one, however, the plan already calls for monitoring. by definition, i have a series of things that some point i would like to add your address. i am thinking for this particular resolution, given that they are by definition

monitoring, are there any other ways that the city attorney and staff can actually expand on monitoring is about without actually doing it here? can you make sense of that? >> sure, so the transportation implementation plan is a policy document that will continue to involve -- to evolves. the director is trying to put in some certainty that this will be implemented with some certain way. there is a reporting requirement to the state legislation which would allow us to implement pricing. it requires us to go back to the state legislature three years after it is implemented. this is very consistent with the intent of the plan. it is just giving more structured around it. at any time, the board could

make changes, policy changes, but as rich noted, the entitlements, the parking ratios, are locked in now. >> and guess what i am asking also, based on your answer is, yes, this is a good way, but there is also a policy matter under consideration. that may affect the transportation plans. what do we do? bring this resolution back? i am trying to have a way that makes this flexible for us instead of locking in been -- it in. this is going to be evolving. i think that is your answer. it is going to be evolving, and we want to make sure we update the plan. that is great, the assurance that we have. what i'm saying here is what about all the other elements that come up because it is evolving? how're we going to incorporate?

should there not be another measure for us to be flexible to address those things? that is what i wanted to say. this is a great idea, and also there are other ideas. we can add policy directives instead of just having a grandfather. >> when we bring forward the recommendation, the formal recommendation to make the transportation authority, currently our recommendation would be to aid the transportation authority, when we do that in the authorizing legislation, i think we could add it in there. >> i think it is a great plan to make sure that we do that instead here. i like the idea, it is just that there are other ideas that i would like to incorporate in

addition to what the commissioner has said. if that opportunity exists and the plans are dynamic and evolving, i'm just going to see how we can incorporate them there and then expand on what he said. what if we find a certain something or whatever? i mean, there is going to be a lot of discussion on that. that other plan, other agreement will help us then to be able to expand and add other policy measures. >> then i would like to move the second amendment. >> item 6, the second eminent? >> this would be to item 11. >> i think we need to do these one by one. is there any public comment on

the proposed amendments to item 6? hearing none, let's call the roll. >> for the record, someone will need to move the amendment to items 6 and second it, and then we should vote on its as amended. >> it is moved and seconded as amended. [roll call] 6 ayes, 0 no's. >> next item please. if there are no other amendments, can we do seven through 12 together. >> we were voting that you vote

on each item separately by roll call. >> item #7. [roll call] 6 ayes, 0 no's. >> roll call for item number eight. 6 ayes, 0 no's. roll call for no. 9. 6 ayes, 0 no's.

roll call for no. 10. >> which one is 10 exactly? >> item number 10. >> aye. >> i think the director mentioned that be and then and is to item 11, but actually, this is a proposed amendment to the deer dap, which was attached. i think you should rescind the vote on item number seven, rescind thmove to amend item nur

seven, and then vote again. >> i so move. >> without objection. >> roll-call vote to rescind the vote on item number seven. [roll call] >> thank you. on item seven. one thing i noticed in reviewing the documents was that we did not have, once this is all approved, any further approvprot all of what the developer implements and other -- implements and other, which is very unusual. the redevelopment agency usually has some requirement down the road. there is not much detail at all

in the documents now as to what the programs will be. the issue of retail is of crucial importance to the future. they obviously need everyday goods and services just to the quality -- just for the quality of their life. the second big point is that the more they can do on the island, the less they will need to travel off the island, causing a negative impact. there is also going to be, when the time comes and the commission is sitting, a discussion about the pricing. obviously some of the retail has to be affordable to people living in affordable housing and everybody else, whereas other retail will certainly be more high-end. so, the way to deal with that i would recommend to is that we should approve each sub-phase retail program in general. that does not mean you approve

what stores and operators. that is not whether retell program is. it means you would approve square footage is and the proximate type of the business. but again, i would give the -- it would give the residents a chance to talk about what they need in a way that this commission could actually take action and response to their needs. i just do not want to turn complete control without any recourse on this over to the developers for 20 years. so, i would like to move the following. in addition to the sub phase applications section 1.2 0.1 0.6 retail plan, for any application that includes retail components, the developer shall submit a plan that includes size and type of retail that shall be targeted during that some phase including an assessment of the needs of

the project for retail businesses. is that clear? >> is there a second? >> i second. >> any public comment? discussions? >> roll-call vote on item number seven. >> question about that. so the way it is currently is, what, say they do not have a detailed plan? each phase shall have a commercial component attached to it.

you think the demand would grow as people -- as your development housing, you get more demand for what? bigger grocery stores? hair salon and nail salon? i do not know. i do not have a problem with perhaps looking at it. i would hate to see as dictate exactly what is going in there. i mean, i have had it happen in other neighborhoods. we had some prohibitions on restaurants. i just want to make sure -- i guess i'm just trying to understand how this would be implemented. >> staff can explain it, but there is a sub-phase. there is phasing in the project and as part of each phase moving

ahead, the developer would tell us what the retail program was going to be for that phase, not the store, but the type. because right now we have no say. they could do anything they wanted retail-wise today. we would have absolutely nothing to say about it the way the documents currently stand. >> so what happens if the developer submits a retail plan, we approve it, but that business does not prevent. for whatever reason there is no demand for it. >> well, the plan could be general enough -- and it could always be changed. it will be general in nature. it is not going to say nail salon. it would talk about personal services as a category. >> if i could just add, i think

this is fairly consistent with our actions within the deer-up now. this would happen as part of a sub-phase application, some years before you actually built retail. i think it would be a broad plan of the types of retail that could be in that space, a mix of neighborhood serving as well as regional serving. it is appropriate with the types of other approvals we are making in the deer dap. >> i guess if it is general enough, i can see where it would be helpful to -- i mean, some of these controls are not working anymore. they did work for a while to prevent restaurants from taking over neighborhoods and service

businesses like a barber shop and a shoe repair shop, things people need day-to-day close to their home. i'm just concerned though that when we get into dictating -- i would hate to see retail store fronts stay vacant because of what we dictated to be never actually materialized and no one else can move in. that is just my concern when we have this kind of a amendment. >> again, we're not going to talk about exactly what kind of personal services it is. we need a chance for the residents of the island to tell us what they need. and that they will be heard by the development. if they were going to bring in

another high-end restaurants because that's what we most need. >> think it was kind of an oversight in the document. >> i actually think this is a little too restrictive at this point so i am not going to be able to support this at this time. >> can you suggest anything that gets to the same answer that is not a problem? not as restrictive? >> not right now, i cannot. is this something we can bring up at a later date? does it have to be done now? >> you are approving in the de er dap so if you wanted to make a similar amendment or an alternate amendment, you have to make it now. >> i do not have an alternative,

so i will not be able to support it tonight. >> you know for the staff, again about the flexibility. i have a concern. if we grandfather any policy in at this point that is vague and can be misinterpreted, where is the flexibility to make amendments are whenever later? can the staff help me out? because again, i am concerned about the dictating. when you have a 10-15 year plan, there are changes that are going to be evolving. my position is that the residents already have this ongoing process. they're all going to be engaged

in to deciding with the developer how to make this a very viable project. i think that is already built into the plan, so what do you have to say? >> so, the planning would actually administer allowed and permitted uses and conditional uses, which you do not have authority over, but the planning commission does. this would give you some say in the sizes and types of retail that the developer anticipates putting into the spaces. again, i do not think he would necessarily have -- it would not be dictating types of retail because the retail spaces would be built probably a couple of years after you approve this plan. you would be approving a broad retail strategy. >> now that i have heard --

>> would you except a change to just make it simply asking for an assessment, because i think your point was basically to make sure that it is up to their residence, and whenever will be put in will be relevant to their needs. maybe it can be amended to just a request -- a requirement to conduct an needs assessment. >> well, that would be good and it is a place to start, but then they could ignore it. that is the problem. i am open -- we need some kind of way to have an needs assessment guide have results.

>> so we have the needs assessment and a staff. could that be measured or what kind of actions would be taken? i am trying to look at a friendly amendment as suggested by the commissioner. if we change this to a needs assessment, does it still serve the same purpose? >> we would then tried to reason with them. >> does it still not achieve the same purpose? >> if i could buy been a little bit on this -- pipe in a little bit on this, i think i feel a little bit better about this now

that i understand it. it is a public body. we're going to have a public hearing. if the developer is submitting to us the plan, we're going to have a public hearing. hopefully, we can bring the residents to our hearing. we can hear about it and then we can approve a retail plan. i guess my concern is about how the plan is going to be, but at least it is a public process. we will have the developer come to us, a public party, at a public hearing, have the residents come to us, and then they can tell us what they need. >> the word targeted was suggested by staff. that does not mandate something that says this is what they are going to, you know, try to