the floor is to not certify. on that motion. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> nay. >> aye. >> that motion fails on a 3-4 vote. >> move to certify. >> second. >> on the motion to certify the report. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> that motion passes on a 4-3

vote. >> and at this time the court reporter needs a break. he has been typing away for the past few hours. we need to take that into consideration. so we are going to give him a 10-15-minute break sufficient? we will take a 15-minute break and be back at five after 6:00 and hear about delivering on the project after thatatthe pla in session. if i can remind everyone to turn off any cell phones. if you feel the need to engage in discussions, take those discussions outside. commissioners, you are on item two for 3711, 19th avenue.

before you with the adoption of findings request for a planning code amendment and zoning map amendment and local postal zone permit and a request for approval of the development agreement. >> thank you. good evening president and members of the commission. items 2 a through 2 f require acquired approval which has been presented to the commission over the past few months. this outlines the topics discussed by dates. in today's hearing planning staff will outline the general description along with approvals requested today. the development agreement is one of those actions and

michael is here to speak about the most recent updates and key components. the project sponsor will provide an overview of the project. before i get started i passed out updated findings, mmrp, project budget for the commission's review outlining the changes to the mmrp. the changes include clarifications about the screen lines and analysis and further explanations about three alternatives rejections. commissioners pointed out that it could support opportunities for renewable energy generation and the statement that it could not has been deleted. it was simply a drafting error. moving on to the project. the site including approximately 152 acres of land and is located in southwest san

francisco generally bounded by brotherhood way to the south, phoenix avenue and 19th avenue to the east. and holloway avenue, font boulevard, pinto avenue. the project, which would be implemented in multiple phases over 20 to 30 years includes the implementation of new residential units and the demolition and replacement of 1,538 units remaining subject to the san francisco rent stabilization ordinance and relocation rights for existing tenants. it proposes the realignment of streets and blocks, overall transportation improvements throughout and adjaceant to the site. it includes hydrology improvements. the project will include the

addition of 310,000 square feet of new neighborhoods serving retail and office space. there will be 68 acres of new ocean spaces including neighborhood parks, athletic fields, new farm, community gardens and outdoor courtyards. it requires the creation of the special use district requiring new zoning. since a narrow portion is located within the coastal zone area changes within that area necessary tate a local coastal zone permit from the commission and an amendment from the california coastal commission. lastly this project is rooted in the approval of a development agreement providing benefits to the city and to the developer not otherwise able to be achieved.

in order for the project to be fully implemented, the planning commission must first under 2 a approve the findings related to the approval of the project and recommend that the board of supervisors approve 2 b, c, d and f. lastly the commission must approve 2 e, the local coastal zone permit. the department recommends the commission take these actions in order to improve the program. the department determined based on the following findings the project is a beneficial development for the city that could not be accommodated without the requested actions before you today. the project through the development agreement would retain rent control protection, the project would result in 5,679 new rental and for sale

housing units resulting in a diverse community totaling 8900 units. second, it is resulting in high per capita greenhouse gas emissions and would reduce auto trips by up to 50%. third the existing development will include the restoration and land dedication for urban agriculture. it would treat storm water run-off on site. decreasing the demands on the city's sewer system and reducing the frequency of run-off into the ocean. the project would result in an entire community built in conformity with the city's better streets plan and create a social heart for the community and traditional dustin pedroia system within

close walking systems of all systems. it would create 68 acres of usable open space providing opportunities for residents and the surrounding community. six the project would result in transportation investments funded by the project sponsor including the muni light rail which would provide more operational options. this is a critical initial investment for tier 5 options. peter albert is here and available to answer questions about the 19th avenue study. the project would result in numerous other public improvements funded by the project sponsor to the intersections providing circulation benefits for the wider community. in summary the department recommends that the commission

approve 2 a-2 f and 2 e as previously described in order to allow the mixed use development program to move forward to the board of supervisors for final approval. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. >> fwood evening commissioners and president. it is a pleasure to be here tonight. i have a lot of information to cover. i will do my best to be quick with it. i have a slide on the powerpoint here that outlines what i would like to cover tonight. i just briefly want to speak about the approval process and any refinements that might come out of that process after the planning commission if that is what the planning commission wishes tonight. there are a whole series of follow up issues that have come

up repeatedly that i want to specifically address. second, i think it would be worthwhile going back to the original information presented on development agreements in general, there are many questions about the legal functioning that have come up over the course of the last five informational hearings. i want to briefly review the incomal benefits to the city, those that have been published since january 13th on the planning department website that were prepared by our third party consultants. i would like to talk in-depth about phasing, a theme coming up repeatedly. many comments have been made. i want to clarify what is in and not in the development agreement. i want to spend the majority of my presentation focusing on the issue of the rent control replacement and the entire process around tenant

relocation. and finally all of us are available for q&a. and i do want to emphasize, i realize the transportation issues i left out if any of you have specific issues, peter is here. we do have additional slides that we can share if there is a need. first of all, before i go on i wanted to speak briefly. there is a memo in the commissioner's packet that addresses revisions to the development agreement. the main thing i want to emphasize is after this commission -- if this commission recommends approval we have to continue on to the board and the sfpuc commission and of course the board of supervisors. normal procedure for a complex agreement of this size and scope. those agencies and commissions will have additional comments

and revisions that they may recommend. what you will notice if you read the resolution associated is that there is specific language grants the director discretion to allow for changes. we hope to continue that dialogue and add any further

findings necessary. in addition to those processees, there are five technical issues that may need minor revisions. the first is language, separation development into sub phases. the second is language around transfer rights. the third is excuseable delay. the fifth is any requirements from the d.a. on that topic specifically, i'm looking forward to receiving extensive feedback from the rent board on the form of the notices given out. here we're talking about how the form of the notices can be made as clear as possible.

as all of you know, the city's general fund is under significant dur recess. -- duress. none of the planning, sfmta, the county public transit authority, none of these agencies will be left in the hall. all are able to be fully reimbursed. the staff time is just under 500,000. with that out of the way, i'd like to move forward. we've heard several comments at every hearing, i believe, on the desire of a shopping center owner to consider adding right-turn access in and out of camden drive.

the original proposal did not include that access. there is a variance that is consistent with all the findings we've gone over tonight that would allow access on to camden drive and out of camden drive. this would be a right turn in and a right turn out. it would increase the permeability of the site, and it would address the concerns of the commercial viability of that long-time shopping center and the small businesses located therein. second on follow-up issues, we've heard many, many comments about seismic safety of new construction. i don't want to spend a lot of time on this. two important points i think are worth hearing here. the first is, of course, that any new construction under the california and san francisco building code would be held to the highest standard of seismic safety. it is impossible for our

department of building inspection to improve anything but the most recent seismic standards. secondly, and i think this is more important, this particular area in the city is probably one of the best from a liquifaction perspective. as many of you know, a substantial core downtown is in a high liquifaction risk area. we approve high rises that are for the most stringent peer 46-review standards. we're dealing with an area of the city that has some of the lowest areas in the city. if you look white and green on this map, green indicates low and white indicates very low. as you can see, this site is well positioned in terms of that

euro issue. -- in terms of that issue. we have heard it is an unwise thing to demolish. that statement isolated in general terms may be true in some contexts. this analysis i will show you is an extraordinarily conservative one. we looked on a per-foot basis, so we compared ab apples to apples. we could talk about if these net new 5,000 units will built somewhere else away from transit. we could talk about how many vehicle trips and how much carbon would be generated by the vehicle trips. that is a whole other story that has to do with greenhouse gas

emissions. here we are simply focusing on the performance of the buildings themselves. that's an extremely important point. i'm not even discussing here the desireability from a an environmental perspective of having housing close to transit. i'm simply talking about the design of the buildings. what you see here on this chart is co-2 emissions based on both potentially the energy consumption of the existing units. this graph was compiled by looking at the existing utility bills and then comparing that to pg & e's own carbon emissions for gas and electricity based on their current mix. so this is projecting out production of an existing unit over time at park verced.

this red line on the left is the carbon joult put -- output of the construction of the materials, the actual construction of the new materials. on a conservative point, i said this was a conservative analysis. we decided to assume there is no remaining embodied energy in the existing freight. we know that carbon was produced when they were built as well. for purposes of this analysis and to take the most conservative view, we assume that there is net zero embodied carbon in those units. however we assume the full brunt of this construction cost, and that's what this red line has on the left. pime willing to say that the units here are actually a blend of all three construction types that we would find on site.

type one, type three, and type five. from high-rise concrete down to wood frame construction. what we did is consider the wood frame as we took proportionately from the project build-out. how many would be type one, type three, and type five. what you have is a blended carbon rate. then what you see projecting out here is that the lower comparative energy use, because these units, of course, would be outfitted above existing title 24 standards, the terms of the development agreement. and what you see is at year 24 a complete carbon payback if you want to use that term. at that point in time with these conservative assumptions, on a one-for-one comparison, not even considering the e.m.t. or any of these other issues, the

replacement at park merced pay off and begin to reap rewards over e-- over emissions over time. finally, issues have been raised about the urban design and the notion there is no physical design control, that there is no specific physical plans, that we're going to end up with a sterile, monolithic, even perhaps mission-bay like landscape. so what i'm bringing to your attention is what's been in your packets four months running, which is a specific example frts park -- from the park merced design which go into he can ordinary detail, block-by-block. 23 blocks in total. what you're seeing here is block two. i know it might look exchaotic on the screen there, and i know

the color is not coming through, but what this diagram shows is an extraordinarily diversity of building heights, setbacks, and both new streets and paseos and open spaces. every block fits into a general proscribed urban plan. there is flexibility in that plan, in is variability in that plan, but they are binding guidelines on the left. it is in your opinion a good balance between prescriptive urban form and design while at the same time not being overly prescriptive because we do like variability surprise and design innovation. this chart on the left, you can see for this particular block, a certain amount of footprint area is allowed for an 85-foot building for example. that's what that first black bar is on the left.

as you proceed down, there is a certain amount of footprint down to 35 and 15. there is also a prescribed minimum of public open space. that's that green area. i don't know if it is going to show up here. there's the open space. here is the 85-foot footprint that i mentioned. there are choices to be made. nonetheless, my point here is there is a diversity of design integrated into every block. in this area, i would point this out as being quite different than mission bay and perhaps exciting because we might see an urban form here that has much greater diversity. that's it for the follow-up issues.

these are comments i made a long time ago and are worth revisiting. the original state law with regard to development agreements was in 1979. it came out of court cases at the time where local governments were increasingly calling into question the vested rights and development and the state decided it was wise to create a contractual meckmism whereby local governments could develop directly with developers and come up with an agreement. this is not a new legal tool. this is not a radical experiment. this is not untested territory. this is something that's been used extensively throughout california. fulton who publishes a book every two years on california planning, last edition, i checked, he said there was over

400 of these around the state. this is a legally binding promise for mutual benefit. mutual for the public and the developer. the development agreement must result in greater public benefits than could be achieved through application of existing ordinances. when i talk about the economic benefits, i'm going to return to that point. as well, there are no needs to follow traditional nexus law, because we are in contract law here. probably most important because i've heard concerns about fortress and concerns about is this developer going to be here tomorrow. this is so important to re-emphasize. the development agreement runs with the land, not with the owner, the developer, or any personality whatsoever. it runs with the land. in addition, section 11 of this d.a. includes sub sfangs

transfer protections to include all obligations for the city are enforceable regardless of the ownership, so if a piece or a portion or a parcel of this area is sold in the future, the obligation and then the benefits will transfer with it. the city has rights to approve or disapprove if any obstacle gages are transferred. if any obstacle gages to the city are transferred to a new party, the city has a right to review and ensure that there is either a bond posted or the city is confident in the commercialability of that developer to deliver. the d.a. is a system of checks and balances of many land use constitution governing this area for the next 30 years. it does not rely on the good will of any one owner. that's an important about the.

on to our economic analysis. this is all review, but i think it is worth reviewing given that we're before you tonight to talk about those benefits that woo be achieved throughout those greater benefits beyond existing ordinances. that's what i want to talk about in these two slides. first of all, our economic analysis which has been posted now for over about a month on the web site, includes some pretty interesting information. in total, we believe, the city believes, it is obtaining over $500 million of negotiated public benefits in excess of what we would have achieved under existing ordinances. this is not including existing impact fees. this is in excess of those. how does that break down? $200 million. the bulk are community improvements, the transportation improvements, and other pedestrian bicycle amen tis.

$156 million in present value terms in present value and maintenance. for a time the developer to providing a permanent maintenance and operation budget to clean our public sidewalks, to maintain the publicly acceptable parks, to ensure the storm water system and the wetlands are functioning, and to clean the transit plaza areas. this is well above and beyond where we can achieve what we can. it is good for a cash-strapped sfi. we estimate the value is worth almost $160 million to the city and county of san francisco. i do want to emphasize this point. this is not an economic deal, it is a moral deal. we don't believe it is propte

appropriate for the city and county of california, we don't believe it is appropriate for the city and county to displace residents, and we have designed an agreement that to the best of our knowledge does that. even though i am showing you economic figures, this isn't a deal from a deal point, but it is important to quantify from an economic perspective what it's worth. it's a human value. i want to repeat as well, in addition, this 516 million in negotiated benefits is in addition to existing code requirements. most specifically in the relevant many of affordable housing, i think it is worth underlining. i heard people speek speak about justice concerns, about the diversity of san francisco. and there is an important fact here. we will preserve the rent crool control units, but rent control