projects, sometimes we have, you know, time considerations that are involved. i don't believe this is the case here, unless there's something i am not aware of. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would just like to add that nobody is against the project. it's just by the way it is being driven, i believe the design is substantial and it lacks in process and policy. that is my biggest concern about it. it's exactly for that reason that we need to give it the time it requires to re-zone for a property with as many residences and with as many public policy issues, which are involved most and foremost, rent control and transportation. president miguel: director? >> i just wanted to mention that it is true that this is a very large piece of land in single

ownership. but i will also say the schedule that i outlined a few minutes ago is one that we now feel comfortable with, because we have been working fairly extensively with several city agencies, all of whom have to be volumed in this because there will be a number of public streets running through the site, public utilities, all of those issues and you will see a development agreement we have been heavily involved with. we have gotten to the point where we are comfortable bringing this project to you on that code just like any project. i recognize it as a big project and clearly there has been a lot of community outreach by the developer. but we are to the point we feel comfortable bringing it to you in that schedule. that's why i mentioned the dates that i did. president miguel: vice president olague? vice president olague: and, again, i don't like to -- usually i prefer to be discrete about some of these issued that come up. but what occurred is i sat in a meeting on monday where i was

told that we would not be hearing this in october. and then two days later, based on a couple of conversations that i was not privy to, that schedule changed. and i just felt uncomfortable with it and that's why i felt we had to put it on the calendar and bring it here. i have heard from some community many but not from many community people that the developer has done any outreach to them. i am not sure what the outreach schedule to the community is from the developer, but i would love to hear it. i am not familiar or aware of any of it. there's a lot of issues near that need to be looked at. we will have a little more time to do so. but i am not aware of any outreach being done to the community from this developer. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i am confused. in terms of the notification,

dr. rahaim, can you clarify what you said in terms of the notification, i know notification went out in the paper yesterday or today. was that for -- >> there had been discussion that we would have a hearing on the project on october 21st -- actually approval. that's what that was for, soy you will have to take a continuance action on the 21st. commissioner sugaya: all right, thank you. president miguel: is there public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am from the affordable housing alliance, i am relieved to hear that you are going to go along your more typical time lines with this kind of process. i was a little concerned, like the pro verbal old gray mare who trots along deliberately most of the time, but at the end of the

day when home is in site, breaks into a trot and finally a can'tor. i don't believe we are ready to do that and i am also distressed to hear of the comfort level because there is a major issue left to be resolved which is how does the promise that the developers are making that the demolition of over 1,500 rent control units will be replaced with housing that also has affordability for renters maintained. i have warned you about this before, but the bill clearly states you cannot do that and the ellis act interferes with that project greatly. the palmer decision makes matters worse. we no longer do rental housing in san francisco or anywhere else in the state and the embassy suites case makes the matter even worse than that. we are not that close, i think,

to figuring out how we are going to make that promise a reality. and i think some more discussions are going to have to occur, until we figure out what the mechanism will be. i am not sure at all how it's going to be accomplished. and i hear a a lot of wishful thinking. but an outreach is great, but the bottom line is what are the courts saying about this? can we do this? how do we do this? we don't have that answer right now. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good goo afternoon, i am in the san francisco tenant's union. we, too, would like to see this move slower rather than quicker. there's a lot of complex issues and a lot of housing involved. the biggest issue in terms of preserving the rent controlled units, be were able to do something with trinity plaza as

people may know, but subsequent to that, we have had some bad court decisions, the palmer case which mitchell referenced. we need time to look at how we will be able to do this in a way in which it's legal to preserve those rent controlled units, and pushing along on a fast scale, or a slower scale will help in that process. i urge the commissioners to give this the time it deserves, given the number of housing units at stake and given some of the complexity of the legal issues involved. and i think both sides want to see something come out of this where we do not lose rent controlled units, but it's not easy. it's something that's going to have to be looked at closely by the commissioners and possibly ultimately by the board of supervisors. it would be nice if as much of that got done here as possible.

again, i would urge that given the scope of this project that you move slower than quicker and let us all figure out how to make this work. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> hi, good afternoon, jim abrams, representing park merced. i want to address a few comments. we have been doing an enormous amount of community outreach on this project the past three or four years, and the year before files an e.i.r., we had monthly meetings with both the tenants and the neighborhoods around the projects and been continuing to do that. at this point we had over 250 meetings, and they have been relatively well attended and notices sent out to all of park merced and the larger community and had a variety of beth the city hearings, the draft e.i.r. and informational hearings, and we have had informational

hearings here as well or presentations here as well. so i think it's our perspective that we have don quite a bit of outreach and we documented that on our website, all the meetings and all the informational materials provided on the project's website, and then in regard to the rent control housing issue, we feel very strongly that the mechanism for doing this is a development agreement which is a contractual agreement between the city and developer that obligates us to preserve the rent controlled units and we promised to preserve the 3,221 rent controlled units that exist there now forever. half of those london breed replaced by the project and replaced by new rent controlled units. there's absolutely a way to do this. and it is also the same

mechanism at the training plaza. >> and we appreciate the time. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> sue hester, i found the legal ad for this on the department's website 4:30 yesterday afternoon and started calling in to find out what the expectations were. i was told the e.i.r. responses were going to be available next week, because they had to go to the commission at the 21st and to the extent they were in the office, i thought the hearing was the 21st, there are

community meetings, and there is participation that is meaningful. of all of the projects, and all of the things you need, you need to have legal documents out for circulation by not only mr. olmerberg and the people that spoke here, but the attorneys they use. i am not one of the attorneys on rent issues. they had their attorneys, you cannot just drop a complex legal document on people, two weeks before the hearing and say that is sufficient. i am telling you, you can't do that. that's not fair, unless it is a charade that you are going to just rubber stamp the project. same with the complicated issue on design and transportation. i am glad mr. rahaim has had interdepthal meetings, but those haven't been meetings that the public is invited to and has all the information. you are going to get to distill

what you learned from those meetings into your staff report. people have to go back and back truck to muni, to dpw, to everybody. two weeks for a staff report for this project is insulting. it was even more insulting at 4:30 when i found this yesterday afternoon. if you even try to do that calendar, you would be rung out. we would just pour you down the steps. no one can survive that kind of

a hearing, and it was adventure rouse for staff to even contemplate that. you kind of laugh, but that's ridiculous. you cannot insult people by giving people two weeks to absorb complex documents that they haven't seen before, and i don't care how many nice little community meetings they had, it's a different thing when there's transactional documents that are going to be binding and a gift to the developer for the life of the project. thank you. >> i am from the council of community housing organizations. there are significant affordable housing implications of this development. we are very pleased in general of the notion of seeing the possibility of rental construction happening west of the boulevard. a wearty in this town.

it is inconceivable for me to figure out how we go forward on a complex question of guaranteeing continued rent control in the legal era that has been laid out to you very briefly. and then understand that this is all going to be handled by a development agreement which we have some small understanding of. i would hope this commission would want to understand how a development agreement works. what are its terms? how long is it in place? is it in place, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years? how is it the represent control issue is dealt in the development agreement. think that is of significant importance, not simply of this project but as a city wide issue as well. i would strongly urge you to take due deliberation of this

process and to hold the public hearing simply on the development agreement, which is an extraordinarily important document given the legal era we live in. and the insistence on the part of at least the city, represented to me by doug schumacher, that it is concerned as we are that continued affordability happen through rent control in this development. we don't know how that is done except for the development agreement. i have not even seen a draft of the development agreement. i don't know if you have seen a draft of the development agreement. certainly we haven't had enough time to go through the development agreement. i think you should hold a public hearing simply on the development agreement before going forward on the rest of the project. this is a critically important city-wide issue. thank you. >> is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed.

direct rahaim, i would appreciate receiving a copy of the development agreement on the 21st if you think it's going to be available at that point. >> i think we can try to get you -- in any case it would be a draft since the final version goes to the board anyway. we will try to get you a draft. president miguel: inc.? commissioner antonini: as a resident of twin peeks, i will report there has been a lot of outreach just as a resident there. that does not necessarily mean to answer the legal noticing questions that were brought up by many of the speakers today, but i will say that the community that lives in that area has received a lot of outreach from the developers in this particular project. with that being said, i think i

agree that any development agreement should be part parcel entitlements i have. i would assume it would be and i don't know that it has to be a separate hearing but itd

recommendations and they added four extra issues of concern that they wanted the board to address. supervisor olioto-pier looked at the recommendations and with appeal rights that were no longer applicable as the sponsor has removed proposed

requirements in order to maintain appeal rights. many of the speakers at this week's hearing were still under the mistaken belief that the ordinance would require action in order for you to maintain your appeal rights and this is no longer true in the revised ordinance. other requests that sought to increase the ability for all parties to participate in the process had been incorporated and examples of these amendments include setting reasonable timelines for appeal hearings so that all parties have time to prepare and adding additional time for seasons when the board is on recess, providing for staggered deadlines for submittal of material to the board and clarifying when notice is required for exemptions, especially those issued for other departments beside planning. the committee incorporated recommendations that would clarify ambiguous procedures to clarify what may be subject to appeal, when an environmental

document is resinlded by the board and they also made some technical modifications. the legislative sponsor responded to some of the h.p.c.'s request by eliminating the request for prior participation in order to maintain the appeal right, expanding notice of exemptions, and including the historic preservation commission in the review process as well as insuring that the designation of historic districts is not interrupted by sequae appeals. the proposal has been continued to be reconsidered on or after october 25 to provide opportunity for the supervisor to do more outreach on this proposal. on tuesday the full board considered the historic preservation's commission of certificate of appropriateness for changes to the board's

chambers to allow a.d.a. access to the board president chair and the clerk's table. and this week it was approved by a 9-1 vote. the board also approved a construction agreement for 1150 ocean avenue. this would authorize the director of the planning department to execute an agreement with the developer on behalf of the city to inensure the development of inclusionary housing and existing area housing plan requirements. last week as you heard, the director testified on the land use item and reported that while we are waiting for cpmc to submit plans enabling us to calculate the amount of housing that the plan would require, he also noted that the same plan does provide an avenue for a code complying project to avoid the requirement if approved by a c.u. by the commission. the authorization is the current proposal for the project and the full board voted to approve this

resolution 7-3. earlier today they recommended the re-nomination of commissioner borden. >> and the planning vote to update the vision valley community facilities infrastructure fee and fund to confirm to other programs and areas. that concludes my report unless there are questions. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: i don't need an answer right now, but on the changes to what we had passed regarding transferable development rights with historic

structures and i would like to know what those were to what we had and what the concerns were voiced about it because it looks like it seemed to be fine when it was coming out of here. and finally, there was the mention of the van ess avenue special use district item that had been discussed at the supervisors and i believe a resolution was introduced if i'm not mistaken next week. and i just would like to see if we could get a copy of that document from the late 70's or early 80's, whenever it was passed to sao what -- to see what it does say even if it is not applicable, but interesting to have the documentation. >> i can get you both pieces of information. commissioner antonini: thank you. president miguel: thank you. secretary avery: commissioners, i am not sure if there was a board of appeals meeting or report.

historic preservation commission held a special meeting to discuss articles 10 and 11 and they got through both but they will at their next hearing next week, the staff will come back with the recommended suggestions for change. and those will also be before you at the joint hear iing on t first. with that, commissioners, you are now at general comment with a 15-minute time limit and memberses of the public may address the issues that are in the there. and keep in mind that this category has a 15-minute time limit.