san franciscoian. grew up in the castro neighborhood, went to church at m.h.r., played at the rocky mountain museum and ran around there, my mom taught forever at mckinley school. i became a police officer in the city and worked in the mission,

specifically working in the castro for many years walking the beat. i'm extremely familiar with this block of the area and traveling through the city forever, transferring when the trolleys were not aboveground. to speak about the benefits of this particular project, the size and scope of it, it is absolutely beautiful. when i met my wife she lived at 240 castro, right up the street, an we went out for dinner and bought each other gifts and paraded through the neighborhood for about a year and a half before we got married, spent tons of money in the

neighborhood, benefited the neighborhood, which i still consider my neighborhood in my heart. it's all about fairness here. this is why i'm here today. no one is paying me to be here. i don't expect any compensation or anything other than to project this image of fairness to the commissioners here. to begin a project where you're certain what the guidelines are and you project this project to that guideline. and then have a -- ocktavea market corridor -- octavia market corridor group that has this plan in sight and then to extend it into an area where a project is already being considered to be completed and the -- again, that's going to

benefit the community with the people going out and spending money and using the public transit. at this site. to then change the guidelines or the goal posts, you will, it's like having been on a muni bus and paid the fare and then have the bus driver jump up, grab you by the collar and say, the fare has been increased since you got on the bus and now you need to pay additional or else we're kicking you out. that's the fairness as i saw it, that's why i'm here. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is redman lank, i'm a developer, i want to speak on behalf of the projects that are before the city in that area at the moment, i think they should be exempted, not only the one on the corner but also gold's gym

that purchased and want to do some development on it. we all sat through those hearings going back to market and octavia. there were boundaries drawn. it set some guidelines for development, set some guidelines for what you expect to pay and what you are supposed to do this is a project on the corner that has been going since 2004. you know, it's six years. in the process at the moment. it got all sorts of instructions, guidelines to go by from the planning department, from architects, from everybody as to the zones and what could be done there. and i think it's only fair for it to be exempt. the other comment is to do ground floor rail yard setbacks. i think in most cases shea should be allowed. if you look at what's been

developed on those lots and how it works out and that most of the time is dead space back there. it's a lot better in most cases, depending on the size of the street, to have the rail yard raised up eight feet or whatever it is at the back of the buildings. thank you for your time. >> good evening, commissioners, president miguel. my name is jeff raca. what i'd like to talk about is a fundamental issue of fairness here. i was jotting down some notes last night and my son was next to me doing his homework and we had just had the big thing about the giant he said, what are you writing about? he said it's not often you bring homework home. i said i'm writing about ex-post factor. he said, what is that? he's an avid baseball player. i said, son, it would be like if

the unites were in the world series and we decided that after the first three games of the series, we're going to change the rules, we're going to duo ahead and say now there's only three balls and you walk to first base, and only two outs and only six innings. he immediately recoiled and said that's not fair. that would change the way we would play baseball. i said that's what ex post facto is. it is so fundamental to the way we do business in this country that it's enshrined in the constitution, article 2, section 9 says, congress shall pass no bill of atind -- attainder or ex post facto. these are articles we fought for against england. i don't think it's fair or reasonable to ask for a planning exception to something so well enshrined. this commission has dealt with this issue before with grandfathering and i think they've done very good, straightforward, fair assessment of it. all we're asking for is that

same sort of assessment. it's why they put it in the constitution. it's why baseball games have rules. we can't just change it because something decides they don't like how the series is going, we want to change the rules. how would you reich it if you were an architect and you started drawing up the project and they said, sorry, we changed the code. even though you're halfway through and got already been approve. i trust you would not like to be treated that way and will not treat the citizens of our city that way. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, good evening. joe mccar mack. i think this legislation is well intended and needed and i think the commission should move it forward. one exception is the

grandfathering. and can we ever talk about grandfathering. i know we sat here for months and months discussing grandfathering. historically we could go back to the original supervisor market legislation back in 2001, it had a grandfather provision. 2006, supervisor daily and supervisor maxwell, the authorization to the section 315 of the code, it had a grandfather provision. we go to -- >> that's not you. >> ok. we go back to the east end neighborhood and come to conditions. we sat here and debated it. it's a reasonable expectation for somebody that, you know purchases a piece of property that the rules that were there when they purchased it and the rules in place at the time should be the rules they abide by. so i would ask you to approve the legislation with the amendment put forward by

planning staff here tonight and exempt the specific project in question. if there is an ap bylation for -- application for gold's gym also, it would be reasonable to do that. we have to have some level of certainty in this economic climate. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioner. my name is kieran buckley. i'll try not to repeat the best i can but i think for these builders and property owners, i think it's important that at a minimum it should be grandfathered in. i think the provisions that were

put in by your staff should be kept in at this stage when at the -- at the time when the property owner submits, gets the application for the permit, purchase the property, at least. i think changing the rules during the game, again, is -- it's very unfair and difficult for people to move forward with any project. when that happens. thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner olague. vice president olague i support staff's report, as you mentioned here, we endorsed it in 2008. so all these processes as they relate to the market and octavia plan do take some time.

i would support mandatory d.r. being required as it relates to 376 castro. some of the other pipeline projects. i think it's -- mandatory d.r.'s aren't really mandating anything other than encouraging further conversation between neighbors and developer to make sure that it does really in some ways relate to the market and octavia plan. it seems to have been successful conversations in the past between developer and neighbors and i think what i'm hearing from neighbors is that they would be fine even with in kind, not really mandating anything, just saying mandatory d.r. there are several times when projects are designed and completed and they come to the commission and there's amendments, sometimes you get to the board, there's amendments. it's not uncommon to amend a prompt. you know, even after it's fully,

you know, done or whatever. i support the mandatory d.r. >> so you would support the staff modification to the resolution before you? strike the code conforming project and you would also seek to require mandatory d.r. for any project grandfathered? vice president olague i do. and i would request that the staff come back and give us periodic reports on things so, yeah, that's my -- that's a motion. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm not sure i go quite that far. i do think that projects that have been applied for should be grandfathered under the rule. they were applied -- under the rules they were applied for under, for a couple of reasons,

the first is the boundaries for market-octavia were established some time ago so those who were beginning projects felt this was beyond the scope of those and it's being extended, seems to be a lot of community support for this extension but i don't think one can be clairvoyant enough to realize this is going to happen and designs a project in a way, purchase it, makes an investment based on the rules that are in place. i would like to see project sponsors work with the community to see what they could do to provide benefits but i don't think we should require things and i don't know that we need to require a mandatory d.r. certainly there is the ability, i would say, for any members of the public to bring a d.r. at the time of the hearing if they felt that was it. i believe many of these projects may be code compliant based on older code. that would be a matter for

future discussion but i would probably not be supporting of the d.r. as far as the actual expansion of the market octavia, seems like there's broad support for it. the other reason for not -- for grandfathering is that when market octavia left this commission it was in a different form than it was finally approved by the board of supervisors. so again a little more for anyone to know about because things have changed, the parking restrictions are more restrictive. the other thing i find a little bit troubling is the language on section 2077 which puts restrictions on demolition, conversion and merger of existing dwelling units. it brings it into conformity with the rest of market octavia and the r.t.o. and n.c.t.

districts. i for one would think that there are situations where we might benefit from the merger of some units and possibly conversions system of that's -- for me it's too restrictive. wouldn't be enough to not support what's been moved forward by staff in and of itself. i just have some problems with that part of it. since this is not now part of market-octavia, there's no reason why it has to exactly conform in every matter of the code to market-octavia. i would probably eliminate that, i don't know that the rest of the commissioners would be supportive of that, but i certainly would like to see that out of there. >> your comments reminded me, commissioner antonini, i neglected to tell the commission, it does not extend the same control to this block.

market-octavia included density control and height changes, it doesn't include those. commissioner antonini: those have been taken out system of you've got 2077 is out of there. >> no, those are included but in addition to those, market-octavia has density decontrols, those are not in the ordinance before you. the restrictions on changing the unit con fig rages are but if someone were to build a new building on there, say that there was, like at the gas station, they would have to conform to the density requirements that exist in the district. market-octavia we just have controls over the size and shape of the building form. commissioner antonini: ok the nonspecific number of units. that is not in place here. that's good to know. but those are a couple of things i have problems with. most particularly the

nongrandfathering. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i'm in support with what's in front of us on the issue -- the only issue i would have is that to dust off the 2004 plans for me would require a little bit more, i'm not sure as to whether it has to go as far as mandatory discretionary review but i would expect that a discretionary review, knowing what a pain it is for us, can be avoided by the community and the neighborhood working with the developer in a manner that creates constructive results where grandfathering in the existing parcel creates a division which can be supported by the larger community. i do recommend the neighborhood and the support they have developed to pull this larger block together in front of us today but i'm not sure as to

whether or not really exactly verintay tim going the way commissioner olague suggested it is indeed a constructive way of doing it. i would put the onus on the developer, the property owner, to bring this project forward in the spirit that between 2004 and 2010 we have learned a lot about residential design. and that that knowledge is being used to design this project. >> i would be for the motion but without the mandatory d.r., personally. commissioner? >> i haven't found that putting language in and encouraging discussion is enough. i think if you put strong language saying this, it would be more likely to occur. i'm not convinced that the

developer would feel compelled to meet with neighbors if we didn't have language that required them to do so. but maybe i'm just basing this on something that i have observed in the past. >> i guess a couple of things come to mind. one perhaps is that we will -- you have the upper market guidelines, which do aggress specifics in terms of design, guidelines of buildings on the street scape improvements. cain tell you we'll work with the developer to make sure those guidelines are met in the project. with regard to whether the developer meets with the neighborhood, it's your call but i -- my sense is that this is a neighborhood that pretty much -- >> stays on top of it. >> attends all types of meetings anyway. i don't think you would -- i can tell you that we would certainly make sure those meetings are held before we would take further action on the project

making sure that the upper market guidelines are met. >> in the past my observation has been that it's been under the threat of a d.r. that the developer has come to the table with the neighbors and i'm reluctant to put that burden on the neighbors again. the discretionary view on other projects in that vicinity came from neighborhood groups, it wasn't that there was any voluntary move toward discuss discussing this. so that's the only reason why, i just wanted to remove that burden from the neighbors. >> the only thing i would ask the director, have we gotten stronger tools? have you seen better results than what commissioner olague is describing? >> i think the market guidelines are good tools. they were -- they are unique to this district so they are helpful to us. the other thing that comes to mind is an informational

hearing. >> at a minimum. i would ask mr. richards, the one who suggested this, perhaps speak at the moment as to whether not doing this restrictive deform r., if it's something you're comfortable with and if you feel there's enough common ground about that? >> i have not met the project sponsor or owner, i think i've met folks from the r.b.a. we would like nothing more than to join hands and sing couple baa with these folks. we had to spend all our energy on this. we want to constructively engage the developer, not filing d.r.'s. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would ask for an amendment, and my

amendment would be this, though i don't know if it would be granted by the maker of the motion but in lue of the mandatory -- in lieu of the mandatory d.r., i would move for approval of staff recommendation but with the proviso that project sponsors work with the community and staff to assure conformity with the upper market guidelines if there's any support for that, i would look for a second. >> there's a motion on the floor. i would be open -- there's a second to the motion. that would be -- there has to be a public hearing. i think there has to be some accountability. i would be open to that. if there's the inclusion of a the process went absent the mandatory d.r., absent the neighbors having to file a d.r. and let's see if we can get there with that simple language included in the motion. i'm willing to take that. >> basically the other addition

is, and a mandatory public hearing. >> you know, you were saying my -- and a public hearing. informational hearing on -- >> that works for me. >> the community is still -- >> they're ok with it. >> they have the prerogative to file a d.r. if that's going to happen anyway , why not make it mandatory. >> what i'm hoping for is a good-faith effort in our positive encouragement to the developer to meet with the neighbors will be enough. i want to test drive it and since everyone claims that should be enough, if it isn't we include mandtir d.r. languages in our motions. the public hearing would be part of it. >> informational hearing. >> yes. >> i need clarification.

how did you -- >> instead of a mandatory d.r. we go with commissioner ant nene's language, encourage -- antonini's language, encouraging -- >> commissioner antonini: maybe i can restate it. for approval of staff recommendation for the amendments to the upper market n.c.d. with the grandfather and that's already in there, the grandfathering projects that have been applied for and with the addition that existing project sponsors of projects grandfathered must work with the community and planning staff to ensure the project's conformity with the upper market guidelines and we would have to have an informational public hearing on these projects when they reach that point. >> that's correct. and plus we need to strike out that it must be a code conforming -- >> right.

that's sort of -- i would understand that's part of -- that is struck because the projects will be subject to the -- that have applied are subject to whatever the zoning restrictions were at that -- at the time they were applied for. ann marie, can you -- >> they will comply with all the amendments that we're making to the planning code text. they would not have to pay the fees per -- if they were submitted prior to our deadline, october 28 of this year, and if they are able to fulfill their project by -- receive the planning department entitlements by october 28, 2012. commissioner antonini: and that includes the exemption from the rear yard? >> they would need to file a variance for that. the way that this ordinance -- the resolution was written before you is they have to

comply with all the planning code controls. but there's an avenue for you to get around the rear yard requirement through a variance before the zoning administrator. >> all right. that might be as good as weir going to do. >> commissioner olague? vice president olague: the neighborhood didn't get to where they were at because they were not vigilant. there's a history of neighbors meeting with the neighbors and it was a lot of work and whatever. that's why i think there is still this hypervigilance when it comes to this, want to make sure they conform to what the neighborhood vision is for the area. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i hope that the developer and architect can rise to this occasion. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to approve the amendment for staff recommendation and instead of

requiring mandatory d.r., encouragement of the project sponsor to work with community. that would include a public hearing and information -- an informational public hearing on the project. i won't go into all the recommendations of staff, they have been stated by staff and you. on that motion, commissioner commissioner antonini:. >> aye. >> migser moore. commissioner sugaya. the motion passes. >> if we can take out of order -- >> item 11. >> item 11. >> you are now getting ready to consider item 11.