miguel and commissioners. i am a resident of the san francisco. it is a commercial building, and glad be here on a less controversial project than i have been involved in before. i am a developer by trade. some of you remember some of them. i will be short. one of the things that stood out to me when i was approached by this project was the amount of infrastructure that the developer is proposing to do. one of the worst sections of road in san francisco is 19th avenue. basically you have an opportunity with the density of state college and the town center and the density of park merced right now and take the transit center out of the middle of the road and put it off the

side, which is an unbelievable opportunity. when you take the tracks out there, it creates more capacity on 19th avenue. i don't think we put letters on how bad the traffic service is there, and it will increase the safety and slow down traffic. it is a start. one of the other things, as a kid, one of the things i did not know is the kind of reenergize in -- putting the water back into the ground for lake merced, which is a huge problem for anybody on the west side. it has been a problem and it continues to go there. the other thing, it is smart growth. it is something where you have a responsible developer who is coming up and taking most of the

burden from the city. i believe the development agreement is enforceable, and i think we have had a recent success with another project on market street where it was promised that some of the units would stay affordable. they moved into a brand-new building, and i have not told anybody there, but everything i have heard is that has been a huge success and the people who moved in their are happy with their new and improved, safer, cleaner, better development. these guys are giving us everything that we want with this. i urge you to have an open mind and work with them. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public, disclosed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: thank you.

this is a difficult task. that exceeds many of our lifetimes. i always have a question as to whether or not we can look at clearly into the future, but perhaps you can. one thing i would like to ask is, is there not a physical plan by which incrementally we know where on the site actions will occur and how compensatory improvements regarding streets, transit, etc., will occur? that is a very important question that allows us to understand the complexity of the development aggrieve meant -- agreement, which is the legal over lead. >> commissioner, great question. unlike shipyard, there are no physical predetermined phases. there are some well-defined rules for how such future phases

must be implemented. in the eir, which i believe you have a draft copy of, you will see it illustrated phases, and those are exact approximations of what the phase will look like if it follows the rules. i williztm÷ reemphasize, becausf the private/public nature of the agreement, as opposed to being public/private, because the developer is carrying all the cost and essentially all land, we're not dictating ahead of time the exact9 we are setting the ground rules. so when they submit a phase, we make sure it is consistent with the rules. those rules, i will call them the three p's. they are spelled out, but their proximity, public policy priority, and proportion.

those are the principles. with every increase in density and trips, there has to be a commensurate amount of mitigation measures and public improvements, and they have to be proximate to the development and they also have to be based on the city's policy priorities. i can elaborate further if you like. commissioner moore: not tonight, but i like to talk about other physical values which in phasing are normally import when you start to identify a larger neighborhood. this is basically a conglomerate of neighborhoods. these people for 30 years will live on a constant construction as the growth spreads over this large area. there has to be some specific criteria which i hope will guide the development agreement, which

speaks to minimizing the disruption, creating a sense of completeness, etcetera, etcetera. and mostly, where you start, in the middle, at the edges, or do you move in one direction? i don't have all the answers, but i think our physical performance criteria which would probably be in the interest of everybody in order to minimize the interim problems. when you spread over that time, there are generations of people moving into the development, and each time you have a new group of opposition. >> that is an excellent point, and a couple quick responses. we cannot individually or as a group show you an example -- we have actually prepared with the present sponsor and the planning department's draft phase application, to show how

physically these looke. the point that you raise, completeness, or you may want to call at integrity and the sense that the proportions of the project get billed out, it might be valuable to incorporate some construction disruption, construction phasing review into that, we minimize disruption in people's lives. that is something we will take a better look at. commissioner moore: that might be interesting thing to think about as we move on this. there are many varying conditions, each presenting their own challenge. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: just a few comments, and i don't expect answers tonight unless i bring up something easy. the first thing, you will have something new. you have an ownership units, so i assume there will be condo agreements between the owners

and the builders, but that would be subsequent to the development agreement. >> yeah, it is more complicated than that. there will be a master hoa, master homeowners association that covers the entire site. each condominium building is created, they will have grown hoa. so each building will be part of the bigger cooperative agreement, and then each building will have its own governing condo documents. commissioner antonini: good, that sounds pretty good. a few other things. there were questions asked about tenants, but in the feature the question will come out, and also buying out of tenants who may not want to stay, given the amount of

construction, but would rather move. this may be typical of what is done in other situations throughout the city, and i think we have some context that exists in city law already that kind of the cakes -- the kind of dictates some of that already. >> i look forward to the exhaustive review of the plan, and we will do that and run through serious. we will be as exhaustive as the public wants. to answer your question, absolutely not, i could put you to the section, but i will give that to you after the hearing if you like. to the best of my knowledge, i am no landlord tenant attorney. i don't believe san francisco allows formal buyouts. [shouting] \ president miguel: please!

>> i don't know if we could do that or not. i am not an attorney who specializes in that. i would emphasize two things. it allows full payment of relocation assistance. as somebody rejects and does not want to move into a brand new unit, they get full assistance when they relocate. finally, very important, even if somebody relocates, that replacement unit that they would have moved into remains rent- controlled in perpetuity, so a new tenant can benefit from rent-controlled. commissioner antonini: of course, the enforceability agreement would be something that we will have to look at in the future because questions were raised about that, particularly in regards to the ellis act. it is a complicated subject. finally, this was more in response to some people who talked about the density.

i am not against the density. what i was saying earlier is we have to be careful with the land that we have, that we do not put an over amount of open space that does not allow activity. this is not treasure island or hunters point. it is a smaller site. while the gardens are interesting and will be useful and just plain and open space where it is turned back to nature, we may have to make some choices to be able to have the density. i think diversity of density is great. some towers are fine, but you need townhouses also. finally, i am very happy with the water system idea. i have seen big improvements at lake merced cents the year 2000 when we started to use reclaimed water for watering the golf courses. we began to save the water that comes down the canal adjacent to lake merced and divert it back into the lake, and there has been a huge increase in the water level and i think we could

bring it back up to its full height by doing things in park mereced. commissioner sugaya: a couple of things. that may be helpful for the commission to have the emphasis in other cases that might affect the development agreement. i think some people are nervous, although we have been assured everything is ok, something from the city's attorney's office might be helpful. just starting as a consultant on a project in marin county which involves an institution which has property that is a lot smaller than this, they have done a complete carbon footprint analysis, which was interesting. i have not seen the results, but involved everything from looking at the number of conferences that would have at

the site and figuring out the number of people that would attend, and generally where there would be coming from, including things like the carbon footprint of the airplanes it would be taking back and forth and how much that generated with respect to that particular property and other comprehensive looks. i am not suggesting -- well, maybe i a.m., and response to the green party's comment that a more thorough analysis might be revealing. one buyouts, on a property across from me, and it may not be exactly applicable, but there was an instance there were a former apartment building lay vacant for a long time because of a fire that took place, but that was purchased by a developer who subsequently tried

to turn it into condominiums. which the developers were eventually allowed to do. but in that case, he was allowed to make buyout offers two former tenants that were in that building -- to former tiltenantn that building. i don't know how that exactly came about, it might have been private, i don't know, but i could give you the address. there was a gentle man who mentioned the trinity properties project on market street, in which we had a development agreement. it is a big project in a dense area of the city, and there is a rent-controlled building where people were living and the people who were in the former rent-controlled units are living there. one of the differences is the

type of units that they resided in compared to hear. in trinity, they were living in old motel rooms. i am sure they were refitted for apartments, but those were basically converted hotel rooms, motel rooms. now we have a situation where the housing type is much different. you have people living in town house type units that will now be in apartments that are not like townhouses. so there is a difference i think in comparing trinity to this particular project, and it thinks some of the comments i am hearing from commissioners is maybe the housing mix all to be more diversified.

i have some other things, but i thought i would just do that. they're just questions. president miguel: commissioner olague? vice president olague: i had not heard about the embassy case. i also had questions for the city attorney that i will just write and copy you and secretary avery on that have to do with some comments. i am having issues with of the idea of a transit oriented development as an -- that does not consider the were parking requirements. we have precedents with other projects. to have your reduced carbon footprint and not discourage car ownership, i just want to understand the department's thinking. at some point, not tonight. and transit oriented development plans.

president miguel: one thing, i understand your concept on phasing. the one facing that throws a little bit of a monkey wrench into it is the m line, how that fits into it. because that is integral to the concept there, and also how it affects those. those things, when we get to the transit and of that to me a fax the phasing as well. that whole thing has to be tied together a little bit better than we are getting right now. commissioner moore?

commissioner moore: since you are working in the mayor's office, i think he might be tried to talk about the identification of the city and the major neighborhood route not being a state highway. 19th avenue is a state highway, which is in conflict for what we're trying to make it be. it we're trying to make it a bit -- tried to make it a safe neighborhood street. the relocation of the m line just takes one obstacle away. it is still a state highway. i will just pass that on. and i am not making a joke. i think there is some future, forward-looking thinking in here, by which the idea of a suburban notion of cars traveling from a suburb have to

occur on 19th avenue. so we have to shift the paradigm on that issue. president miguel: and there is a little bit of precedent in that regard. i believe that we would was able to push through 19th avenue some increase in fines for speeding and that sort of thing. we have a number of state highways coming through as well. you have three major state highways, sections of it, coming from the city. how that ends up, how 19th avenue itself ends up being reconfigured i think has to be considered as part of this. if you are taking a line off of there, what are we getting as a result?

thank you. secretary avery: okay commissioners, you have general public comment. president miguel: is there any general public comment on items that have not been on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. and this hearing is over.