progress from this point, where at the time, there were several large-scale developments proposed on market street. of course, this last block, which was left out of the rezoning, but was included in the community design process, so this ordinance will really bring some unity and conformity and certainty to the process of development, which we expect will happen in the next couple of years. also, we expect that it will actually help to enhance the neighborhood by bringing better transit-oriented and community- oriented projects, so we urge your support. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. a group of us, of the neighborhood organizations work

for a long time to hammer this out and make sure that we got something good that would work out. a representative just spoke. the reverse -- the neighborhood title association was involved in that. liveable cities and the market and octavia actions community. also, the community -- well, the cac also endorsed this. so we are very happy about it. it is not as if the community was not involved. it was very involved, and we are very happy to see this extended. my colleague just referred to the community plan for a firm market, which was a long process that involved community

agreements and all kinds of things for upper market, but the zoning controls in that plan -- it was relying on the zoning controls of the market octavia plan, but that was not covered. it just makes good sense. it is rational, and we fully support the way it has turned out, and we hope you will, too. >> i counted on three minutes, so i may go a little longer. i hope that is okay with you. our office has been working on a residential project on the northwest corner of castro and market street since 2004. the proposed extension would have a negative effect on our project. we have a co-conforming commission and request that it be grandfathered as we have the application in prior to december

31, 2005. i would like to give you a brief history of our budget. the multi-family building with commercial based on the street level. we worked with the planning department until 2007 when we were informed that our project would be put on hold until the upper market design was completed. in 2008, the upper market development guidelines recommended a very different zoning for the slot, for the planning codes. we were directed to follow the guidelines, rather than the zoning. we found out that we have little support when we began the process. last year, we concluded that to continue with the project, it must be 100% code-conforming to existing zoning. the proposed zoning only partially incorporates elements of the market batavia plant and would actually make this particular project less desirable and in direct conflict with the screwed up for market

design guidelines. in particular, under the new zoning, the rear yard would be required at the ground floor, not at the first residential floor. this would not serve the residential units but only reduce ground floor commercial use. because of the growth of castro street, this will locate the rear yard of the project three stories below the rear yard media tapir. as a matter of city planning, this makes no sense whatsoever. we ask that our product be grandfathered in at the first residential level. supervisor mar: mr. benjamin, please summarize what your main point is. >> we have been at it for six years. we have a project that is co- conforming. we want to continue with the project. i was bringing up parking being reduced. and part of the markets/octavia plan was removing density

requirements, so we are getting part of the market/octavia, but we are not even gaining density improvement, which is what design recommended. supervisor mar: thank you very much. >> and good afternoon. congratulations on your election and congratulations on your position here. we also have been at this a few years, working with the various -- supervisor mar: if you could state your name for the record. >> i apologize. lee molten. i'm with the design group. we have also been at this for a number of years and have had

pretty good feedback on many of the proposals. we're looking at mixed use projects but also adding rental residential units. under the new guidelines, which we support, we do support the extension to take up what has been termed the orphan law. we do support that we are looking for again more certainty in the process and more uniformity of the application planning guidelines. we worked with the neighborhood on the upper market neighborhood design guidelines. the owners have resisted they did in many different neighborhood organizations and groups and so forth, but our project will be affected by the change in ways that probably the existing market activity a plan is not expecting. because the guidelines being extended are only partial. so how we are directly affected

is that we will be the only property from van ness 2 market street that is not a historical resourced that will be limited to 50 feet, and that is pretty significant when you think about it. the only corner parcel that is not of a historic resource that will be limited to 50 feet, so we will be required to go for an sed. we did not have the certainty of the eir process that others are granted, so we support the guideline. we support the extension. we've been working closely with neighborhood groups, but we will have to come back. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor mar: mr. kaelin? -- mr. cohen, how's it goin'? >> we are obviously a major

supporter and hope to be part of the architecture with this. this is a long time coming. i think staff work hard to come up with a good solution to what we referred to as the orphan block. it was this last little part of the upper market. for a 20-some odd years, the entire stretch of the commercial district of copper markets -- this was back in the 1980's when the city went through a number of commercial district rezoning -- let's call it inadvertently or for a variety of reasons, that got split into two pieces, so this is really about reuniting the commercial district quarter and providing less certainty that the previous speaker mentioned. i do want to speak to, i guess,

both the properties that came before you. i think it is fair to say that at the planning commission, this has already played out. they expressly granted a grandfather of impact fees for the property because that was the primary thing being discussed. variants is common, but in terms of the other consistencies, i do not see any rationale when talking about the project sponsor before for carving out an entire property for what would otherwise be consistent control. when it comes to the site, the previous speaker, they work very hard with the community to get the support. i think most of us feel comfortable with a hike increase, but the planning department says this is not about height, but about the underlying zoning controls. i hope the project sponsor can appreciate that. thanks. supervisor mar: thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent the family that owns 2301 market street. we own the property and the business. as described by many in the community, we work closely in our neighborhood for the last 10 years. four years on the upper market design. this is our existing corner. you can see our building on a prominent corner of market. the aspirations of the community are fantastic. it inspired us to come up with several plants. this is a 50-foot height plan that is compliant with the present height. we also came up with a 65-foot height plan, which is right here. lo and behold, everybody we said take their pick, everybody came

back and said this was the better plan. they like the way it looks. it frames the gateway to the community, expands a very popular local gym, preserves local retail, and as rental housing. we support this extension, but without the height, which is a critical element of the plan, we will be limited to 50 feet unless we get an sed. the cost, the process, the bureaucracy would be prohibitive to us, and a project that has been worked on for many years in close coordination with the community and our membership and many supporters would most likely not move forward. we encourage you as a commission to move forward and support supervisor wiener as a legislative amendment or some other type of tick with the planning department to allow the proper heights to go forward without additional processes

that would just add opposite goals to an already complicated but well-supported projects. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the president of castro eureka valley neighborhood association. i'm not going to restate everything that has been said. really, all i wanted to say was we are fully behind this. the most important aspect of what has been talked about was the community really engaged in extensive process of looking at copper market and what we wanted in 2007. the community overwhelmingly said it wanted market octavia controls to extend up into the castro. unfortunately, that was never

caught a fight, and this whole process was just to codify it. in the interim, what happened is neighborhood residents, community members have had to engage each project one by one, whereas all we are asking is control so the neighborhood does not have to be constantly vigilant and have to work with each project sponsors so that we can all work under the same rules and guidelines. it has been a lot of work, and i personally do not feel that it should be my job to make sure that these things happen. that with the community decided on, really should be planned and codified. that is really all i wanted to say. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. we are here today to support the legislation. we have worked with these neighbors in the past. we work with them at the planning department on a variety of different projects. one could debate how and why we

got to where we are, but the fact is we are where we are, and there has been confusion. there has been misunderstandings, and change is always going to occur. as an industry, the only thing we can ask for is something to smooth and -- smooth the transition, and the grandfathering in does provide some level of certainty. if we could discuss that at the planning commission, there were some issues brought up, and that will be addressed at the commission. we are open to the legislation, and we support the grandfather provision moving forward. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. if i could ask ms. rodgers to come up, in case we have questions. the developer raised some

concerns. could you walk us through the process they would have to go through for the special use district and changes to address their concerns? >> yes, we could. maybe if i could just back up a little bit. when the commission heard the neighbors say that they wanted the controls extended in this area, the president of the commission and our director met with a good number of people. easily over half a dozen to a dozen representatives. at that time, we scripted out what we could do and how much time it would take. it was clear that the residents wanted something that would go forward quickly. it was clear that our department has spent literally millions of dollars on a 10-year effort, and we did not have an additional resources for another community- planning process in this area. with those demands and limitations in mind, the ordinance before you was crafted

to apply as many controls as possible without triggering possibly a time-consuming environmental review. what happens is you have many of the controls but not all of the controls. controls would increase density. there is no changes to hight limit because those with all require additional environmental review. on the gold's jim -- gym property, the owner would be to go forward and pursue a zoning map and give it added height for the additional floor. a zoning map would cost money, but even if the zoning map amendment were initiated by the board of supervisors, the procedures at the planning department is again to pass the cost of that review, including environmental review, on to any

real property owner of interest. even in a rezoning map and then that were initiated by the board, in order for us to process the work, we would still be billing the property owner. as you know, nothing can happen by the board or city without a free its sequel clearance -- without appropriate ceqa clearance. supervisor mar: i appreciate all the testimony from the groups that are strongly supportive of this and other different stakeholders as well. supervisor cohen, do you have questions? supervisor cohen: i did not have any questions. supervisor mar: i guess i appreciate the community effort that has been ongoing since the mid-80 -- the mid-1980's. community groups have been giving input on this, and my hope is that the development and others can work through the process with planning to get their needs met, but i see that

since there is so much support from stakeholders, that i'm going to be supportive of this legislation. is there a motion on this item? would you make a motion? >> -- supervisor cohen: i make a motion to put it to a vote. supervisor mar: so a roll call vote on this item. it is a motion to support this item with a positive recommendation. so, roll call. >> on the motion, supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor mar: aye. >> the motion passes. supervisor mar: thank you. please call item two, and we are rejoined by supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: if i could just -- i was reduced, but i was

watching on tv. i just do want to indicate that i do intend to, separate from this legislation, introduced legislation relating to the zoning and that the property, and we will be having discussions with the planning department about trying to find a way within the law to make that rezoning work without tipping the project to the point of not being financially viable. thank you. >> would you like to call item two and three together? supervisor mar: yes, please. >> item two, resolution declaring the intention to vacate portions of the public right of way within the transit center project area. item three, ordinance ordering the vacation of portions of the public right of way within the proposed transit area.

>> good afternoon, members. acting director of real estate. before you today is the proposed vacation of interest in several streets in and near the proposed trans bay transit center, so it would be at the end of the day, a conveyance of rights from the city to the transbay joint powers authority. the primary purpose is to facilitate the operating and maintaining of the new terminal. the streets affected by the proposed vacation include net,, mean that, first, frameup, veal, harrison, folsom, lamented, howard, second, and oscar alley. we have a lot of maps and background materials at whatever debt if you care to dive in for

details, and robert beck is here to provide you some details as needed. the rights that would be conveyed are either below surface or above surface or in some cases within the st. rights of way both below and above. the city retains the operations of the streets, so this is just to facilitate the adjoining uses or underlying or above ground aspects of the construction project. this is the start of a lengthy vacation process. there are utility easements that will be addressed as part of this process, so this simply starts the ball rolling toward future public hearings, and the decision in march for the actual

vacation. happy to answer any questions you might have an whatever maps you would like to see. it is obviously a very expansive area. supervisor mar: for the public benefit and our benefit, could you put up a basic math and point out which streets or alleys we are talking about? >> i'm happy to do that. i will walk through the individual locations in order of the above or below ground, and i think mr. beck has some better slides that will give you visuals of exactly what is produced as part of the terminal project, so these are very two- dimensional map, but it at least shows you the sections of street. this particular map is for sub- surface rights only. if you are standing on the street, you will really not be affected by these changes and these sections of street. these include -- on the left of this map is second street.

i will slide them over so you can see they run all the way to fremont with one section here. those are the only sub-surface rights. above ground in yellow, shown here, two pages of these. these run from second street, which is shown on the left. here, they run to fremont and a small section on beale.

this last section, second street is on your left. small section on second and on harrison. the description of the actual rights needed are intentionally slightly larger than what we believe will actually be needed at the end of the date to allow the design process to unfold and very precisely defined the rights that will eventually be conveyed from the city to tjpa. the design is ongoing. we have been working collaborative with the planning department. the general plan referral in this is to support this request. ordinarily, a general plan referrals are administrative in

nature. in this case, the matter was taken to the commission for a full discussion and hearing on the item and successfully passed out of that process, so that referral has the commission's review associated with it. i will turn it over to mr. beck did you have any further questions or perhaps want to see more design of what would be existing above the street and below. supervisor mar: thank you. welcome, mr. beck. >> thank you, chairman, supervisors. as a director mentioned, the st. vacations are to facilitate the construction of the new transit center, and we have here a section of the building -- can we come out a little bit?

there we go. thank you. this is a section through the center of the building, but it illustrates several components of the transit center design, most notably the rail levels of the transit center. the new transit center, as with the original terminal, will span over first and fremont streets. these rail levels will also extend beneath beale street.

extending into the right of way on the south and the industry's trade on the north. that is kind of the physical parameters of the construction. i have other images i could show you of other elements of the encroachments or the bus route if you are interested. supervisor mar: no, i do not think that is necessary. >> ok. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. if there are no other questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward -- actually, there is

two separate actions we need to take on items two and three. the first one is to amend on page 6 lines 1 to two, inserting the hearing date of march 1, 2011, back 3:00 p.m., and indicate hearing date of march 1, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. is there any objection to making that amendment? can we take this as amended to the full board as a committee report for february 1, 2011? without objection, so move. for item 3, can we move this forward to the board without recommendation for consideration on march 1, 2011? great. without objection, colleagues, so move. thank you, everyone. thank you. could you please call item four

and 5-eleven together? >> resolution adopting guidelines for the establishing and use of infrastructure financing district. five, ordinance creating infrastructure financing district and adopting a plan for the ring contel area. 6, resolution for the formation of an infrastructure financing district. item seven, resolution approving the infrastructure financing plan. item eight, a resolution calling for a special election for the infrastructure financing district. item nine, resolution declaring the results of the special election for the ifd. item 10, resolution of intention to issue bonds for the ifd. item 11, resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds for the ifd rincon hill. supervisor mar: