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. 4575 geary boulevard.

the institute on aging. >> can anyone fill in for her? >> i don't know enough about the project. >> dewpoint to take a five -- do you want to take a five-minute? >> we're taking a five-minute break. >> the planning commission is taking a five-minute recess.er, geary boulevard, the institute on aging. the proposal before you to modify a condition of approval that was approved by the planning commission and board of supersizors in 2006 this eprevious condition required that additional 28 valet parking spaces be added to the site in addition to the 67 required spaces for a total of 95 spaces. the current conditions -- it's

going to be modified to be amended to say that the valet parking spaces would only be required during business hours and during large conferences or meetings that would have more than 50 people in attendance. the department's recommendation is for approval with conditions. since last thursday's meeting we received one call from an organization who would like further amendments. this concludes my summary of the project. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer. president miguel: thank you, mary. sponsor? >> thank sponsor? >> thank you, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the institute of aging. 3575 geary is located along a transition corridor where the --

where they reduce -- encourage reduced parking. our request is base thond determination that 67 parking space is substantially in excess of demand in daytime and nighttime hours. nonetheless, in 2006, at the insistence of a former planning commissioner a new condition was added to the conditional use approval for this project requiring the 67-space garage be supplemented with a valet operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week to increase garage capacity to 95 spaces. that i allowed us to seek relief only two years after the opening of operations and a new traffic study. at this point, i.o.a. does not have the financial resources to provide valet parking in the garage 24/7 without

substantially reducing its services to the senior community. the budget for such an operation is $349,000 a year. $144,000 i put in my brief was based on a misunderstanding that it was not a 24/7 requirement but a business hours requirement but in fact, the curn condition requires 24/7 valet. according our studies, the only time parking will be exceeded is during meetings attended by outside visitors. accordingly, we are requesting the commission amend condition d-3 to require the valet operations during those times when more than 50 outside visitors are expected for meetings during business hours. this revised condition conforms to the e.i.r. and accommodates the one situation where 60 parking spaces may not be enough to meet demand.

we do not believe it makes sense to provide valet parking when meetings occur during nonbusiness hours. because the 37 staff parking spaces in the garage will be available during those times to meeting attendees. plus, the e.i.r. disclosed that there's ample street parking available during those times. you recall that the i.o.a. is on the site of a former theater, a 1,300 seat movie theater, with limited parking. so since that was demolished, street parking in the area is more plentiful. accordingly, we are requesting that you approve the staff recommendation and amend condition d-3 as written. i understand that mr. warner from the jordan park neighborhood association will ask you to revie the condition to require valet parking at all times when there's a meeting in the building. we don't believe that's necessary.

as i said, there's 37 staff parking spaces in the building that would be empty and available on evenings and weekends for meeting attendees. the meeting room is only 100-capacity. we're on the 38 geary line, seems like 37 spaces should be plenty to accommodate evening and weekend meetings when the i.o.a. employees are not in the building. we would ask that you not extend the valet hours except during business hours when there's large meetings in the building. the e.i.r., this conforms entirely with the e.i.r. analysis which is that the maximum demand for parking in the day is 56 spaces. we have 67. the only time that 56 is exceeded is if we have large meetings in the conference room when there are offsite attendees. the revised condition does accommodate that situation. i do have a text from tom

radovitch i would like to read to you. dear commissioners, on behalf of livable cities, i would like to express support for item 11, conditional use authorization to remove the requirement for valet parking. i.o.a. is nonprofit and the valet parking is an unnecessary burden. the cost of complying with this requirement will come at the expense of services offered to seniors. we urge the commission to grant the authorizat seniors. we urge the commission to grant the authorization. i want to indicate that dr. david wertiger and dr. ken donnelly, both from the i.o.a., are here to answer questions about the sacrifices they'd need to make to enforce this. with that, i conclude my presentation. president miguel: thank you.

richard warner. >> my name is richard warner, i'm representing jordan park and francisco heights, the two neighborhoods on the north and south side of the project. we worked with the sponsors for the last seven years and begged them to put in more parking. we got nothing. on april 6, 2006, the planning commission required those 95 parking spaces because the hundreds of people in our neighborhood that came to the multiple meetings came out and the planning commission heard us. we live in the neighborhood and we understand the parking situation. it's easy for project sponsors to say there's 144 parking spaces. i walk my dog every night and mr. miguel you know that from ardello to the beach, you're not going to find 144 parking spaces

at night. it doesn't happen. so i met with the project sponsor and the legal counsel of the project sponsor tonight said to me, we agree to nothing at that 2006 meeting. we agreed to nothing. he kicked me in the teeth and he kicked your predecessors on the planning commission that changed that -- that required that 95 parking spaces, that was a requirement then and it should continue to be a requirement now. our neighborhoods met with the project sponsor and we agreed that they could -- we would agree that any time they have a conference with 50 people or more in that 5,000 square feet conference center, i think more than 100 people can fit there, but let's not go into that. we agreed that any time, not between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00, our neighbors come home

every night and they're looking for parking places every night. i know the situation in the neighborhood. don't listen to environmental reports and don't listen to a lawyer that kicked me and you right in the teeth. so what i -- what i -- what ik so what i -- what we're asking is that any time the conference center is open, that they -- they're required to have 95 parking spaces. i think their lawyer is a little mixed up because he says there's 67 parking spaces. there are 25 parking spaces that -- there are two developments basically there. there's bridge housing with 150 units, they're required to have 25 parking spaces. there are 67 parking spaces in the whole place. so they really only have 38, i think it is, parking spaces that they can use. that's why your predecessors on the planning commission understood the deal and that's why they required the project

sponsors to have 95, really 24/7. he's also a little mixed up on his $340,000. yes, if you had a valet parker in there 24/7, 352 days a year, lawyers can make anything sound but but that's not true. if you really figure it out and figure out that between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00 and any time they have extra events, it would be closer to the $144,000 that he made a mistake and put in his original document. what i would ask is a motion that you amend the -- amend the deal to use our wording, that i gave to mary woods yesterday, because that was the first day i saw the wording that their legal counsel changed without our approval. but thank you very much and i hope you'll amend the final

document. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this matter? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner olague. 6 -- vice president olague i want to move to approve i want to move to approve with conditions. president miguel: is there a second? president miguel: commissioner ant nene? commissioner antonini: i have some questions in regards to what mr. warner just said. is it true that the parking is bifurcated in that 25 parking spaces are the property of ethe

bridge housing units and 38 are the i.c.h. are the i.c.h. -- i.o.a.? >> it's 30 and 37. >> the bridge housing is assisted housing, i assume? >> most of it is independent living 120 of it is independent living. commissioner antonini: but it's conceivable that some residents have there are some have cars? >> that's why there are some places. commissioner antonini: that makes it clear to me what the lineup on this is. ok, thanks. i have a suggestion on this. that would be probably in line with what mr. washer was suggesting, i guess i should have asked mr. -- how often do you think we're going to have events that will have over 50 attendees in the conference room? >> well, any time because --

i'll tell you why the time is not as significant as the number of events per year, i guess. >> ken donnelly, with the institute on aging. we have events in the conference room, mostly community education events. they happen at least once a quarter. events. they happen at least once a quarter. there may be maximum one to two a month. commissioner antonini: ok. how about social events you may have in addition to that, gatherings? hard to say how often that would occur? >> a few when we open the building in the next couple of months, for obvious reasons. but setting that aside, we don't expect but one or two a year in that circumstance. commissioner antonini: ok. >> and all those events you were just enumerating, what are the

general times of day? >> the education events happen during business hours. would happen in the conference room or the auditorium space during business hours. we have very few after hours events. excepting the grand opening and that sort of event that will happen in the next quarter or so. >> as long as he's -- >> a question, commissioner. how many staff do you have and how many do you project that are going to be in the building? >> there'll be 103 staff that'll be in the building, i believe that was in the original document. we did a -- an internal study and we have 43 people who use the commuter program, a vehicle

for public transit. another seven people ride their bike. we have several who live in the neighborhood and walk and we have two or three scooters. so we're well over the 50% mark of people who -- we encourage public transportation. commissioner antonini: one last question -- >> if i may? these are already people working in your other immediate locations in the neighborhood? >> yes. >> and do you have parking for them? >> we currently do not. we have 13 -- i bel we have 13 -- i believe it's 13 spaces behind one of our buildings, and that's it. everybody else, if they choose to drive, parks in the neighborhood currently. so we'll actually take, we figure, 37 minus 13, we'll take those off the neighborhood. >> to continue with commissioner antonini's question with respect

to parking. aside from larger meetings and what not, i assume you have people coming there every day for some kind of meeting, not 50 or more, but in terms of two, 10, maybe 15, 20. otherwise it's hard for me to believe we've built a conference center of i don't know how many thousand square feet a capacity of 100, that you're only going to use 10 times a year. so there must be some other things going on that maybe you could -- >> i describe it as an auditorium, it's not raised seating, it's a flat surface so we can use it for multiuse. we have participant programs, they are brought in by van. we take care of people with they are brought in by van. we take care of people with alzheimer's disease, etc., and we will use that space as well for, you know, morning exercises

and things like that. we will definitely use the space. >> ok, thanks. >> i'm going to followup and make a suggestion, a motion, that if it suits the commission. i tend to think, given what has been presented by project sponsor and i certainly agree the prior valet requirement was onerous and would be a huge financial burden. but it seems as though, since they're saying these conferences will be fairly rare, one would expect the social events would be fairly rare, i don't think it's out of line to aprove the staff recommendation but instead require the valet 24/7 when there are events that will, you know, generate an additional 50 in attendance or more because you're going to have people visiting their loved ones that are in residence there, you're going to have staff members, you're going to have some residents who actually own their own cars, those are the ones in

the bridge housing. i think it sounds like it's a little thin right now but i don't want to add additional expense to the project, institute on aging, which is doing a wonderful job there, but i think it might not be that much of an expense if the events are as rare as presented. that would be my motion. to clarify, the motion is that they provide valet at any time of day that there's more than 50 people. not 24/7. >> any time of day, obviously not -- they're not going to have events at 3:00 in the morning. >> but when there are events -- even if they occur on a saturday or sunday, which is fairly rare, but if that were the case, i think it would be good that they provide it. you're still going to have people visiting their loved ones on saturdays and sundays, still have some parking uses are going to continue and i would think that many of the care givers who

work there would work on weebds too, so there would be people coming and using the parking on weekends. >> it's not 24/7. when they have an event. >> is there a second? >> i could. -- second. >> anything further? commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i think staff recommendation, having heard everything, is solid enough for me to support the original recommendation in front of us. i cannot support this nickel and diming. >> i would also tend to support staff recommendations. vice president olague i think it's a reasonable amendment to the original motion, conditions of approval. i was here for the origin nam discussions. the only -- you know, i think

it's not an unreasonable request. to i'm -- so i'm going to go on with my own -- i'm not going to support the motion on the floor currentry. -- currently. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: isn't the motion on the floor the same as the staff recommendation? >> the only difference 2003 the commission's amendment and the staff recommendation is instead of monday through friday, it would be monday through sunday. that's the only difference. any time when there's a large meeting or event that has more than 50 people attending. that's already in the draft motion. >> that's any time during the week? >> right now it's only monday through friday. so with commissioner antonini's amendment, it would include saturday and sunday.

commissioner sugaya: for clarification, what is in existence now is providing the valet at all times? >> that's right. commissioner sugaya: even when there is no event, there's a valet? we're eliminating it for any time when there's not an event that generates an additional 50 attendees or more? so that's what my motion is? all i'm saying is, this could be a problem on saturdays or sundays or evenings too, depending on the size of events. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to approve the amendment, staff recommendation, goes a little further and requires valet parking any time there's an event of 50 or more participants. on that motion, commissioner antonini. commissioner moore.

commissioner sugaya. commissioner -- >> that motion fails, with moore, olague and miguel opposing. >> move to approve staff recommendations. >> second. >> commissioners oh the motion on the floor is to approve the amendment for staff recommendation. on that recommend -- motion, commissioner antonini. >> no. >> commissioner moore. commissioner moore: aye. motion fails on a 3-2 vote, commissioners antonini and sugaya voting against. commissioners would there be a recommendation for continuance? >> a motion to continue to the next hearing.

the 18th. >> the hearing would be closed, commissioners, with the absent commissioner receiving and hearing the material that's been presented and participating in final action. >> correct. >> that would be to november 18. is there a second? >> second. >>en the motion for continuance to november 18, commissioner antonini? >> i just wanned to add, we would hope project sponsor in the neighborhood association could work the resolution perhaps before that ti commissioner moore: aye commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> of the public hearing is closed.

they will participate in final action. you are now on item number 10, the mixed use project overview and development agreement. >> the good evening, commissioners. i was passing out a copy of the slides that we are going to be showing so you can follow along on paper or on the screen. you are also receiving an updated version of the draft and development agreement. which will begin to be discussed

this evening which supersedes the version that you received a couple of weeks ago. if i could get the slides up on the screen, that would be great. when we were here a couple of weeks ago to discuss the initiation of the amendments, the commission suggested that a series of hearings to review the details of the project and all the components of the development agreement. we worked hard to find apartments, the other project sponsor and other agencies to come up with things that need your approval. the topics we will be covering today and the subsequent hearings, today, we will be doing an overview of the project

to refresh the commission of what the project is comprised of. it is important to understand the background of the context of the development agreement. we are here to provide an overview of the development agreement and how the overall development will proceed through its implementation. in two weeks, we will be back here to discuss in more detail some of the aspects of urban design. to discuss the development agreement and how it deals with public improvement. we will talk about the sustainability plan and have folks from the public utilities commission to discuss their involvement. on december 9, as we work with president miguel, at