island yerba buena area plan, it's really interesting to me that staff was able to put together an area plan within the space of about three weeks, i think. we had a redevelopment plan previously which i have here which i was reading until the change came along and then all of a sudden we have an area plan for us to consider. i think it's rather unprecedented that the commission and staff has never given us a real presentation and the commission has not had informational workshops specifically on the area plan itself combined with the s.u.d., which are major items for the commission to be considering, especially since the s.u.d. is set up in such a way that it takes power away from the commission which i think is not

a correct way to go. also, it would have been helpful, and i think it's because of the time element, it would have been extremely helpful for us to have some kind of matrix or some kind of comparison before us that showed what was in the old redevelopment plan and its various related documents that related to land use and what-not and the new area plan proposed before us and that way we could have seen more clearly what the implications were for adoption at this point. on -- where are we? consistency 101 findings, there's a proposal and i don't know if this has been done, i don't think it has, for treasure island transportation management agency, staff, is that -- has

the board of supervisors created that agency at this point? >> no, it has not. commissioner sugaya: it has not. i don't have mr. radullahovich's communications to us but it seems strange to me that we're creating yet another transportation authority. one of the problems i think in the bay area region-wide is that there are too many transportation authorities already and it's very difficult, extremely difficult, to coordinate activities between the various agencies and it just seems to be bifurcated and to add another one specifically for theiled -- the island doesn't seem, for me, a good idea. in terms of housing under policy

1.9, is says approximately 5% of the market rate of the units would be sold or leased as inclusionary. it then goes on to say that 1249 housing units would be in stand-alone, affordable buildings. i'm not a housing expert and don't know the sociology behind the way people live in housing and how they feel about things but the commission has always thought that inclusionary in buildings under the 15% is more desirable than having the developer pay in lieu fees and what-not and having it go to the mayor's office of housing which then goes to non-profit housing developers who build single buildings. and i understand that for certain populations it might be more desirable because there are then available services that they can take advantage of and

what-not but perhaps for another type of affordable level, it would be more desirable to have them included in the market race units and 316 versus 1249 seems to be a huge discrepancy unless it has to do with some kind of funding mechanisms. also on page 23 of the general plan consistency findings, it says, while the proposed project will increase traffic in san francisco and on the bay bridge, and while service of some transit lines would be

affected, on balance, the proposed project will not impede muni transit service or overburden streets or neighborhood parking but if i remember right, aren't some of the unavoidable significant impacts among the streets and muni service that this is trying to say on balance is o.k. so, i can't support that, either. all right, in terms of planning code amendments and i think one of the speakers mentioned it, under the redevelopment plan, i understand the role of the redevelopment agency having control over the redevelopment area. we've seen it all over. so we're quite familiar with that. with the changes that the city -- staff and the developer, city is proposing now to use

infrastructure financing and to change the way the mechanism works and tihdi doesn't become a redevelopment agency, the proposal for the tida board to retain all land use decision making i think is not a good policy for the city and the comparison chart that was given to us by staff had the former way, the redevelopment scenario approvals worked and the way the s.u.d. approval structure works and it's a concern to me that 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.