for a minute. i think she has gone to the -- >> she will come back. president miguel: other folks can come in. >> i am michael burke. i represent a developer who wishes to develop at the park. they are talking about a total of 1600 units. i gave you copies of a letter on october 27, and sent you an e-mail today. i had to wait until today to send you an e-mail because i did not find out what was on the pieces of paper that are being handed to you now until 9:30 this morning. i have two points i want to make that i think are very important. one is economic. mr. lao said that the proposed amendments will not change the fees and the developer pays. the proposed amendment will change the credit has a right

that mr. uribe would have now under the ordinance for a community center he is proposing to locate in his property, in the center of x park, where the urban center is going to be. the community center would be available not only to the x park people but to those from bayview and anywhere in the city in the same way it is available to the uribe residents. that is a hit of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. that is hard for someone to tolerate with a building that has been almost empty, to accommodate the san francisco forty-niners. that is something this commission should take into consideration. my second point is process. we negotiated the full credit to under 24 pap five or six years

ago. i believe mr. anthononini was on the commission at that time. the fee ordinance was roundly opposed by bayview and existing residence at x park because it would transfer development dollars to vis valley. we were able to work with the community to come to an accord so there was no discord before this commission when the vis valley ordinance was introduced. the reason we were able to do that was the guarantee the credit would be set aside for a community facility that would be used by x park and bayview. there is not a single community center planned for x park, and x park is going to have 2800 residents.

i do not think anybody wants them to go through the tunnel to have a community meeting. we just got this and have not completed our discussion with the supervisor. we recommend you take no action. thank you. president miguel: is there additional public comment? >> hello, commissioners. my name is steven sugata, and i am here on behalf of universal parent corporation, doing the project in exposition park. we find ourselves in an unfortunate situation where we cannot support this legislation in its current form only because we have not had the opportunity to review these materials. we have been working with the supervisor and we are encouraged by what has been said. in fact, i appreciate what mr. lao has said today, that there

is no intent to increase or decrease the obligations of any developer as a result of these amendments. however, the way we have seen them thus far, they do, as far as we are concerned, and we need to go through them a little more carefully. we have just received amendments at 1:11 this afternoon, and just received some at 3:45 this afternoon. in the past when we have dealt with this ordinance, there was time to review it. there has not been such time as in the past. you know universal paragon corporation has had an enormous contribution and commitment to these neighborhoods. during the last several years, while the recession has hit developments hard, they have continued to make huge capital expenditures for cleanup of land out there, for planning activities in vis valley. yet this could seriously derail any potential projects in the future. i am optimistic we could continue to work this out with

the supervisor's office, but we really cannot do it with what we have now. i urge you to postpone any action on this until we have had an opportunity to go further with it. i do not want to get into the details of some of the other issues because i still have not reviewed all of the other issues. but there are also considerable issues with regard to the nexus study which we feel are inconsistent with further planning efforts which have occurred in this area. there is a huge park planned in vis valley. that is the result of this commission's actions. in the nexus study that was prepared, it said there are no new needs for parks in vis valley. i do not know how that can be consistent. i do not understand. perhaps this can all be worked out, but we have not had the opportunity to do that. i urge you to continue this matter until we have had a chance to sit down further and

review the issues. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you very much. espinola jackson, bayview hunger'ter's point. i had to go to another commission and that is what i did not hear everything. do not vote on this today. we have thanksgiving coming up and christmas coming up. this will be done next year. when i was here to hear this, it was put over. there was supposed to be community meetings. i have been on the executive board for over 30 years, and they have not been a meeting on this issue. that is before you on no. 16. as was stated, we come before you to tell you the truth on things. not all of you, because you were not here.

you rush things through. i am requesting that you do not vote on this issue today, because pretty soon we are going to have a new supervisor for district 10 and we want to make sure things are done correctly and in order. because they have been done in that community, things that should not have been. i came here and almost was in tears to how these developers have been treated. they have been forced into doing things that should not have had to been done. i am requesting that you please, please do not vote on this today. thank you very much. president miguel: is there additional public comment? >> dan macarino. i have been a resident of little hollywood in san francisco since 1989. i attended last saturday a meeting in visitacion valley concerning the developments fledgelock, excecutive park, and

other issues in our neighborhood. this issue never came before us to review. i want to agree with mrs. jackson that this community should put this aside, allow the communities to review it. do that before you vote on it. we have been working very hard with developers out there to find what is necessary in relationship to what the community needs are. if they are in fear that this ordinance will stop those projects after the long public process we have been in, it would be a very unfortunate for us to have to start over. so i encourage you to put this aside and allow us to take a bit of a closer look at it. >> good afternoon. my name is claude everhart. i work for uribe park and

paragon, and community outreach. i am part of the job developing an agency in hunters point. we are the agency that was charged with hiring bayview, hunters point, and visitacion valley resitents fodents for the loweepss project. it is one of the best victories we have had in that part of the city for a long while. i ask that you put over this issue. this is a job-killing issue, and it is also a neighborhood divisive issue. this ordinance was passed in opposition to the people in the bayview hunters point community.

it has not been discussed with the people. it has not been discussed with people in little hollywood. it has not been discussed with people in visitacion valley. we have 2000 families that currently live in executive park. it would say they are going to be deprived of community facilities in their community without any discussion. that is not how we do business in san francisco. please, let us put this over for community discussion. let us have or community debate. let us put forward an ordinance that can have a community consensus. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. vice president olague: i would like to hear mr. lao and department staff respond to the comments we have heard. >> i respectfully ask that you simply look at what is actually

contained in the legislation we put before you and not, frankly, fear-driven assertions about what may be in there. this is largely a technical effort that does not change the amount of money collected from the community fund. nothing is at risk here. we have not made assertions about projects that should not be supported with the moneys collected by this community impact fund. we have introduced levels of flexibility and increased the number of options that sponsors would have in meeting their obligations under the fund by not tying it into a citywide process which you have now established in other parts of the city. there is nothing in the current legislation or the proposed modifications that would prevent the building of a community center. there is nothing that says community centers would out be appropriate. there is still a guaranteed credit we have left in the ordinance. we have simply suggested that

this is the more appropriate body to come forward and go through the in-kind process which is now established. it makes a lot of sense. we may want community centers. we may need parks. we feel a more robust stock analysis with your input is the correct thing you and fashion with which to deliberate -- we feel a more robust staff analysis with your input is the correct thing and fashion with which to deliberate. commissioner antonini: the specifics in regards to the reduction in the credit for the on-site facility -- i remember the hearing when that was approved, and i do remember that part of it, that there was a credit for the community center that would be available for all in the area, not just the residents of executive park. counsel for mr. uribe is representing there will be a reduction in net credit. is that correct or not?

>> there is still the same direction of community center and the same opportunity to provide one if the sponsor wishes. the currently structured way that credit is worded, we have proclaimed that basic structure in the ordinance. but we have reduced the guaranteed cap that will be available, given the rationale i laid out that there were community facilities in the neighborhood. a sponsor could still come before you and seek the relief of their entire fee burden for a community center. we simply think there should be a community process and dialogue about that. i agree with community center statements that they would want a robust conversation about that, rather than legislating it wholesale. we think it should come before you in a more collaborative fashion with more analysis to help inform your decision. we propose to retain that credit program in the legislation. we have reduced the cap, but we

feel it is in the spirit of compromise and recognizing that program is in the existing legislation. we have retained it, but we have reduced the cap. commissioner antonini: mr. burke, could i ask you about that please? my feeling is that there is a reduction on the guarantee. basically, that was negotiated five years ago. i forget the exact date of the hearing. i do not think this should be changed, if that was a deal cut them. >> that was a deal that was cut them. it was cut directly with the supervisor. i know that because i was on the other side, representing the group of owners at the time. the community center has been included in our plants since 2005. -- plans at since 2005. it is part of our financial program. mr. uribe has had to borrow

an additional $3 million and had to tap his retirement fund to keep this project alive for five years to accommodate the city. to end at $700,000 at this stage is a lot of money when he wants to go out and talk to a partner and a partner says, "what is it going to cost me for community benefits?" right now, we can tell them. if these amendments are approved as proposed, we cannot. it is a lot of money up front, and there is a community center in x park. it is going to need a community center. you will have 2800 residents. plus the stuff that is happening up on jamestown. commissioner antonini: thank you, mr. burke. that answers my question, and i tend to agree with what you say. i think this and also share the concerns brought up by universal parergon that maybe they have not had a chance to review it. i do not see a problem with a

continuance for a short time. i realize supervisor maxwell wants to get this through while she is still in office. maybe, maybe not. i would propose a continuance until our december 16 meeting, if that has and the availability, linda, to put on the calendar. how about december 9? >> this year is pretty packed out. commissioner antonini: sorry, sarah. i saw you moving around. >> i did want to bring forward one piece of information i think was neglected from staff's presentation. there is a policy adopted in september, the in-kind policy, the gist of which would allow a process for you to determine, on the basis of information in front of you, cost and benefit to the community, how much of an in-kind approval to grant. this legislation before you

still allows 100% of that in- kind, of the community facility that is proposed within the executive park development, to be approved by you. the only thing it changes is that the approval is not guaranteed. it gives to the discretion to do that. i wanted to clarify that is completely in line with the commission policy adopted. commissioner antonini: i think that is what mr. burke was speaking to in the uncertainty with tried to move forward with the development. partners would say, "how much is it going to cost us?" it might be this, but it might be something else. i think we need certainty. i am not comfortable with this as written now. i would like to get a continuance. if we cannot, i will have to vote against this at this time. there are many good parts of this, but i am against that at present. commissioner lee: second to continue. what is our day?

>> the 13th or 20th of january. >> i do not know that the board has many meetings yet. commissioner antonini: we are off the clock, on this. >> certain personnel will be in different seats by then. there is a time concern in that the supervisor is finishing her term within a few weeks. we have been frantically trying to tighten up some legislation. this is primarily to strengthen an ordinance i think we all support, the community fee program, and including annexes analysis. that is what this is about. if we are not able to move it forward, we will not have enough board meetings for supervisor maxwell to shepherd this through. i would be concerned about leaving it hanging. there are some potential legal questions around the ordinance would like to resolve. >> maybe we can try to squeeze

it in on your special meeting of the ninth? commissioner antonini: let me make that move. that would be december 9, correct? >> if i could interrupt for one second, remember that if the commission chooses to offer a recommendation, but it has to happen in 90 days. the board can move forward without your recommendation. i do not know when the 90 day -- commissioner antonini: i think we have a while. >> december 9 would still be within the 90 days. commissioner antonini: thank you, a director. my motion would be for a continuance to december 9. i think i have a second. president miguel: motion to continue normally does not take argument. however, would you acquiesce to commissioner comments? commissioner antonini: of course. commissioner moore: i generally

trust the supervisors' proposed legislation. however, the commissioner's only were handed the verbiage in front of us two minutes ago. in reading department recommendations, but also other comments, i need a few hours to absorb what is in front of me. with that, i support the continuance with a caveat that we will hear it on december 9. president miguel: i have to agree with that. changes to the legislation that come in at the 11th hour and later, i have problems with. >> the motion before you is for continuance of this item to december 9. i assume public hearing will remain open. on that motion? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye.

commissioner sugaya: commissioner antoninaye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> do you want to take a break? let us take a break. president miguel: i think this is it. we are going to take a 15 minute break. [groans] we have been sitting here since 1:30 without a break. i am going to ask if it is possible to position your cameras anywhere else. >> where are they supposed to go? >> the planning commission is back in session. we are now on item 11.

>> this is a conditional use request for other entertainment for the restaurant and 14 columbus avenue to allow pre- recorded musical accompaniment for a singing waiter who will sing opera accompanied by a portable stereo. the property is located at a north beach commercial district. the business district occupies 600 square feet on the ground floor of the building with an 1130-foot square foot parking in the rear. the restaurant has a total of 125 seats. they also have tables and chairs on the sidewalks. it was approved in 1998 for

entertainment of limited to acoustic music. in order to use the pre-recorded musical accompaniments. the department recognizes conditions been proposed. no other live accompaniment is too vague permited, and no other music would be permitted on the aunt your area. electronic amplification would not be permitted between midnight and 6:00 a.m. the lead to further ensure the music would not impact neighboring businesses, the commission may require the windows and doors be kept closed during the time entertainment figures. the department has received

nearly 100 letters and e-mails from the merchants' association. department staff has spoken to a representative from the association who says they are concerned because the restaurant could become a night club. the police department is not opposed to this request. the department recommends approval of the proposal advances the policies of the general plan. >> project sponsor.

>> good evening. i am here to introduce you to the brothers and sisters who owns this restaurant. there restaurateurs first and foremost. they have no intention of becoming a night club. they are saying he cannot -- to say he cannot have opera is like telling him heì(lc@&c . you get into a restaurant, and you have noise going down the street. you dean -- do need some

orchestration. for something that will truly reenforce culture, and it needs it. these wonderful people are trying to do it also. i do not believe she wishes to speak, but salvatore will. >> we are a small business. we want to stay in business by adding to our dining experience. the concept is a singing waiter with the use of amplification. the reason i know it is needed is i have asked the singers what their needs are, and they said with the clatter and what

normally has happened in the restaurant, this will cut out the background noise and the clatter of the normal restaurant environment. that is basically it. we want this because it is part of our culture, and we think it is going to be good for the community as well. thank you very much. >> i have a number of speakers cards. because of the time and the fact that they all are in side, you do not have to speak. if you do, it will be a maximum of two minutes.

i do not have your card in front of me. >> i can hear you very well, and the tone that you have -- >> you know not to get up until i call you. >> i did not know you were going to call my name. thank you very much. >> my family has had a business in north beach since 1948. i am president of the north beach association, and one of our members came to us in august

and asked that we endorse his restaurant in having a single singer and a single amplified music system, and we thought that was great, that he was going to go through the permit process, that he was going to just do it, and we thought this would not morphin do something different than his business plan. he is an honest man. this is his word. we took a vote on it, and rarely do we back conditional use amendment. silver is the fact of our board -- rarer is the fact that our board voted unanimously to allow this to happen. we would like