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. these are for item 15. president miguel: is there any general public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. executive director of livable city. actually, commissioner antonini, your request to have a look at the van ess special use district is pretty timely and with cpmc

and it bears looking at. the other thing, of course, that's driving all this is the importance and the increasing importance of van ess and polk street in the city's transportation system. polk street is a major transit corridor, bicycle corridor, pedestrian corridor. and van ess is the expenditure plan committee will be one of the first to bus rapid transit corridorses and the land use controls which were passed in the early 1990's really need another look. it was the last neighborhood planning exercise which actually increased residential parking requirements. there is a parking requirement of one parking space per dwelling unit and that's over the normal requirement of one space for every four in our c4 districts. why it was increased, i don't know. that is kind of an artifact of looked at. of course, there's also very,

very high requirements in the van ess for the nonresidential uses and they can't easily be got rid of. and even if you think and a project sponsor thinks cpmc thought they could do with less parking, and the problem is they have the same limits that apply and rh1b districts on the west side of town for all the institutional and commercial uses and there is no exception that can be granted for those nonresidential uses. i think the automotive special use district which allows automotive oriented uses by right rather than with conditional use is normal and also needs to be looked at again because of the importance of van essen and polk streets that run through here and the importance of the east-west transit streets, we need to be more thoughtful as the planning department has increasingly done about things like driveways and

curbs and those things located on important bicycle and transit streets. it is worth looking at the general plan amendments and the area plan for the corridor and make sure 15 years later, post global warming and post eastern neighborhoods, better neighborhoods, that it's still current and timely because i think the time to really look at it is now with some of the big developments pending and i'll speak a little bit on this. we're very happy for the initiation of the changes to the orphan block, but we'd love to see the department use that as a bellwether and sort of take up the issue of what other parts of the planning code have really gone stale. and really don't meet the needs of san francisco in the 21st century and this is one of those. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any other general public comment on items not on the agenda?

if not, general public comment is closed. secretary avery: thank you. commissioner, you pulled three items off the consent calendar and the president indicated they would be heard at the beginning of the regular calendar. we will go to case six 2010.0045c for 380-398 randolph street. >> good afternoon, commissioner. kelly andrew, department staff. i would like to propose something in the interest of time. i am here to present this case if necessary for planning assessor hayward, but the member who had it pulled from consent has had her concern answered through the project sponsor. and if you would like to hear from her again, we could perhaps do that first. otherwise, i am here and the project sponsor is here and willing to give you a presentation. >> is there public comment on

agenda item 6? the individual who wished to have it pulled off calendar? >> again, i agree with the commissioner's position and i represent mission takers ministry that signed a lease with the owner september 4 and we were concerned that that property of 308 and 306 which is adjacent to property 380 would not be affected. and the owner has agreed that it would not. >> for the record, would you state your name? >> monique martin and i am a member of nation takers

ministry. president miguel: thank you. >> with that, commissioners, do you want to consider this item? president miguel: there sni further public comment? if not, public comment is closeed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: move to approve item 6. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: as long as it's taken off consent, i would like to ask project staff and sponsor to work harder on the design aspect of this building. i had some communication with mr. kim and i think he understands that already. second. commissioner antonini: as the maker of the motion, i would agree with commissioner sugaya on that and i think we can work that out. looks like a good project with some design changes. president miguel: commissioner

moore? commissioner moore: i would ask that he would tell us what the discussion was and what it is you are comfortable with. commissioner sugaya: it wasn't anything specific. i took a quick look at the renderings and it seemed a little -- i don't know. i haven't gotten into the details but seemed a little refinement of what is there would help. commissioner moore: and in terms of how it is computer rendered or the lack of differentiation or facade or windows? is there some specificity on it? commissioner sugaya: i'll just leave it to staff. secretary avery: the motion on the floor is for approval. on that commissioner, the vote.

thank you. >> commissioner olague? >> yai y aye. item 7 has three parts in the wait 2008.1405 dv and 2008.1406 dv and 448 diamond street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i think i better stand for this one. it will take a few more minutes. ellie andrews here to present

this on behalf of commissioner hayward who wasn't able to be here today. department staff has heard your concerns and the difference in the recommendation on this project and the project scheduled later on in calendar, and although i will speak to the diamond street project, i would like to address briefly the differences between the two. the projects are obviously similar in several ways. both buildings are sound. both have deteriorated over time for similar reasons. and both propose to replace existing single family homes with slightly larger single family homes. the main way in which the projects differ which is the reason for the department recommending approval of one and disapproval of other is the perceived affordability. the diamond street building is not seen as affordable and, in fact, comes very close to meeting the threshold for which the project would be exempt from a public hearing all together.

it has been assessed at a value of approximately $1.2 million. on the other hand, the russell street building is seen as a type of housing perceived as affordable and is subject to certain protections of the general plan and the planning code. both cases require a careful ball lanning of applicable policies and criteria. and although the department intends to provide this commission with guidance, we recognize both of these projects are essentially close calls and we have provided you with recommendations for each, but we understand that there are a lot of similarities. if you would like, since we are addressing diamond street now, i will give you a brief presentation on that project and the sponsor and architect are here as well. president miguel: why don't we go ahead with diamond.

>> to construct a new sing three-story single family dwelling with the subject of the mandatory review and no member of the public has filed a judicial review on this project. as the project sponsor will attest to, this has substantial support from nearby neighbors. the project also requires a variance from the