attorney's office, several procedural clarifications involving noticing and filing of applications were identified in the original draft special use district forepart merced -- for parkmerced. they're technical in nature, and the city advise that we approve them to improve the functionality of the ordinance, so they are in black line form. none of them are substantive in nature. supervisor elsbernd: do you have anything else you wanted to add to supplement that? >> deputy city attorney. i can go through the amendments line by line if the committee is interested, or i have an additional amendment that needs to be made to all of the ordinances to add additional language to the ceqa findings clarifying that the board of supervisors is adopting by reference the planning commission ceqa approval findings. supervisor elsbernd: if you

would not mind, because we have so many people from the public who are interested in this, i think it would be of benefit to everybody if she could go through that. >> certainly. in the document you have in front of you, the first amendment is on page one, which is the amendment i just made -- not made, but mentioned regarding the ceqa findings, which clarifies that the board will be adopting, said they approve this project, the approval findings that the planning commission already made. the next amendment -- proposed amendment, rather, can be found on page four of the documents are provided, which is to planning code -- new planning code section 249.64, subsection a. we deleted all the references to block and lot numbers and instead just referred to the parkmerced special use district, which will be adopted by the

conforming amendments being made to the zoning maps. a block and lot numbers, should the project be approved, will eventually be changed as part of the project. so it seemed confusing to include the old ones here. the exchange can be found -- skipping ahead. to page 16, which is subsection -- i believe it is small d2. this added a 15-day staff review period for supplemental materials provided and also clarified what type of application materials should be included when the project sponsor actually moves forward with design for specific buildings in the project. the next amendments are on the following page. section small d3.

this regard to the timing of the planning department's staff review of the project, that they must do the review the 60 days after the project is complete and also that they need to deliver a staff report to the planning -- rather to the applicant no less than 10 days prior to planning director are planning commission action on a specific building proposal. additionally, the next subsection, d4, capital a, there was an edition of the general plan in the planning director's review sow the planning director would have to make sure that any codes, project conform not only to the parkmerced design standards and guidelines, but also to the general plan. clarifying that. in the same subsection, this also provides for a notice provision once the planning director has made his determination on a minor projects, that the planning

director within send out notice within a 300-foot radius, and also to anyone who requested such notice. in the next subsection, for public hearings for large projects, this clarifies that if the planning commission is required to have a hearing both for a large project approval and for a major modification, that that be done at the same hearing so we do not have duplication of hearings. the next change is on the following page. which regards notice of hearing. this provides that notice be made for any hearings for the planning commission for either major modifications or large projects with the 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the properties and also that it be posted on site. previously, notice was also required to be made -- or

currently in the draft that is before the board, notice is required to be made in a newspaper of general circulation 20 days prior to the hearing. that has been removed. the only place that occurs in the planning code right now is where there is a general plan amendment, and it seems strange to include it here for projects where similar notice is not required anywhere else. i will not go into why i think it was in there. it is an odd provision for a project modification. skipping ahead so that general newspaper notice has been removed for a project. under the subsection dealing with appeals and decisions on appeals, we also wanted to add an amendment clarifying that although most appeals of any decision of either the planning director or planning commission would go to the board of appeals, if it were conditional use under these approvals, that would still come to the board of supervisors under the regular conditional use appeals process,

although i think that would have been the case regardless, it is good to have the clarifying language in here. i believe that is the last change, but let me make sure. yes, that is the final proposed amendment. supervisor mar: could you explain or define what a major modification is compared to a non-major modification? >> certainly. it is defined in the ordinance -- let's see, it is actually discussed both in subsection c2 and also in the table immediately following it, provides descriptions of different types of major modifications. these types of modifications would need to be approved by the planning commission -- yes, by

the planning commission at a public hearing. and these essentially deal with where there is a large change being made from what would be more approvable, and the minor modifications would be approval by the planning director. as you can see in figure three, it is essentially development blocks and easements, a deviation of 10% or more from dimensional standards for live coverage and usable open space, a deviation from 10% or more from america standards set forth. for book and massing, again, deviation of 10% from numerical standards set forth. for bicycle parking and car schering, a modification of any standards set forth in the parkmerced design standards and guidelines and for loading and services, anything set forward in the parkmerced design

standards and guidelines. supervisor mar: is there anything else? supervisor elsbernd: for members of the public, i am having my office print out copies of this. we will have a stack here as soon as they are ready. i imagine this will go back up on the parkmerced web site, and if anyone would like to e-mail me, i can e-mail you an electronic version. supervisor mar: we do not have public comment yet. we are not going to public comment yet. supervisor, is there anything else? supervisor elsbernd: that would be it. this would be, as i said, readily available for the public to review. supervisor mar: if there is nothing else, was there anything else? >> i did have a very brief

presentation, and i did want to clarify to the members of the committee that redline revisions were also submitted to the draft development agreement itself, not the ordinance, but the development agreement itself, which was posted by the clerk on friday. i did want to briefly summarize those for the public, and i wanted to emphasize that copies will be available by the end of the day on the planning department website as well, per our usual practice. they were posted with the clerk. i want to clarify on friday, however, as required by the city, by the board rules. supervisor mar: just to remind everyone, items two, three, four, and five were called altogether. develop an agreement as item two. ms. byrne read the amendments for the special use district, which is item three, i believe. item four is the zoning map amendment, and item 5 is the general plan amendment. if there is no other comments, colleagues, i am going to open

public comment, and i have a stack of cards. we are limiting it to two minutes per person. >> i would like to briefly summarize for the public, there are some minor revisions that were made so that they are aware. as i emphasized, they are posted with the clerk, and there will be -- they will be on the planning department website. minor changes were made to two exhibits of the development agreement. the transit subsidy agreement, and the power generation agreement. these are two and celery agreements to the development agreement. -- two ancillary agreements to the development agreement. the transit subsidy agreement clarifies the commitments already made to providing a permanent transit subsidy for every new unit on the project

site and explains how sfmta will administer the program over time. we are in ongoing discussions with the san francisco public utilities commission on the implementation of the sustainable power generation requirements in the sustainability plan. if you recall from our previous presentation before the committee, the project sponsor committed to effectively a 10% power generation commitment of renewable energy and 10% commitment for cogen or energy derived from co-generation. these are commitments above and beyond san francisco's existing standards for renewable energy and conservation. that agreement is undergoing revisions based on feedback from sfpuc staff, and we will be submitting additional revisions

this coming friday to the clerk took just concerns raised by sfpuc staff on the structure of the agreement. again, it is based on the sustainability plan, which this committee and planning commission has previously reviewed. in addition to those revisions to those exhibits, changes were made to address concerns about the existing preschool site. as many of you may know, there is approximately 3000 square foot preschool facility on the parkmerced project site. we added a provision in the development that requires a one- for-one replacement of all of that existing space prior to a demolition and removal of that space. the commitment is that the project must provide operational -- space that is ready for occupancy and operation prior to that

preschool space that is existing today being removed. supervisor mar: let me just slow it down a little bit. i think judith from the moderate -- montessori school testified earlier in opposition, and you say now this is a new agreement that allows for a one-for-one slot for a preschool but not necessarily the montessori program that is there, but it could be a different provider? >> correct. it is my understanding that we could not commit the city to a specific provider, but what we can do, and we are enforcing this to the development agreement, is that it be replaced in its entirety, and the space be dedicated to providing preschool. supervisor mar: i just wanted to follow-up on the power generation agreement. i know that ed harrington and

some from the pc have concerns about how enforceable this would be. could you address that? >> i actually would like to request that we present to you on tuesday the discussions are ongoing, but in some, the basic structure is that with every development based application, the sfpuc would be required to review development for some middle, and if they disagree, they can reject that development and request additional information and work. in this way, we want to hold the project sponsor -- rather, we want to make sure that we enforce their commitments and that the city is able to monitor their progress. for example, if after approval of one development phase, a second was submitted and the previous commitments have not

been met, they get hold of the development phase application, so it is sort of a monitoring and enforcement provisions, and it is the details and structure of that that we're working on with the puc to make sure it is something they feel they can manage. basically, the administration of it is something that they can manage. supervisor mar: i will be in communication with supervisor elsbernd's office as well. the language in question, maybe some changes should be made. one of the concerns is energy consumption at the development was 20% less than expected, there's not the kind of language that would hold it accountable to invest in renewable energy. >> i actually think that that concern is addressed. but i wanted to continue our conversations with staff and then do a joint presentation or at least be able to present to you a solution to their

questions. supervisor mar: very good. >> i will continue then. thanks for your question. there were additional organizational improvements to section four, a majority of which are technical in terms of reorganizing certain sections for clarification. a few of them are substantive in a minor way. most notable is that we clarify that the average size of existing units becomes the minimum size for replacement units, to ease administration and enforceability of the replacement unit requirement for the staff, all of these minor technical amendments are based on requests from the rent board staff, and i did want to emphasize to the committee members we have been in continual dialogue with staff

for the last six months over how to improve the readability and enforceability of section four of the development agreement. a minor revision was made as well to the annual reporting requirements. all of you may remember that state law requires that the director present an annual report to the planning commission and the board on the progress of the development agreement and status of the developer was a compliance with it. we just made some revisions at the suggestion of the city attorney to clarify that reporting rule. most significantly, and the city attorney is here today also to answer questions about this change, section four 0.1 0.2 -- 4.1.2, a new section was added acknowledging and incorporating an express exception allowed

under the ellis act. based on feedback from the board of supervisors and public testimony, we continue additional research on the subject of enforceability, and the city attorney identified an important case in los angeles county which actually upheld a provision in the l.a. ordinance that require replacement housing where of grid control hausen had been demolished, and specifically references an exception -- where many control housing had been demolished. this is in our existing rent ordinance in san francisco. the requirement was challenged by the l.a. apartment association in 2009 -- rather, it was challenged before then, but the case came to the appellate court in 2009, and the appellate court clarified that in fact, this exception is enforceable and that a city like

los angeles or san francisco under the ellis act may require new replacement units and may allow them to be subject to rent control as long as they comply with this exception. based on that very positive case law, we have expressly inc. that exception into the agreement. that section is simply restating what is the law of the land. it is arguably not necessary, but we thought it was important to clarify that in fact, this additional exception, to the exceptions were already operating under, is in fact available to the parkmerced development agreement, and we believe it strengthens the agreement even further. i will leave it at that, and of course, if you have questions, as i mentioned, the city attorney is available to answer questions. supervisor mar: thank you. there are no other

presentations. supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: thanks for your presentation. i am glad that you raised the issues. when i reviewed the documents, i had similar concerns as it relates to the power aspect of the project. i also want to acknowledge you for addressing my concerns for the child care and appreciate you going on record showing the public where the modifications are. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. i have a number of cards. again, two minutes limit each. [reading names]

>> good afternoon, again, supervisors. ibew local 6. we are supporting this project. the difference from avalon date is parkmerced developers are responsible developers. they create work. bottom-line is we are supporting any -- we support any projects that support our members, create work for san francisco. thank you. >> supervisors, it is astounding that you are willing to consider even discussing this project any further at this point. with all the statements by the developer, the mayor's office,

the city attorney's office, there are too many questions on this project alone to be allowing this to go forward. the issues involved have been raised by preservation organizations, community organizations, city organizations. this has been discussed ad nauseam in all sorts of meetings and hearings. there are some basic premises here. parkmerced is an important plant garden city. it is an of a city in and of itself. letters and memos that have been sent state clearly that it is significant on a local and national level. there is no other development in san francisco that represents in such a distinctive manner and with such great integrity, the feeling and character of a modern party city. as an architect, the person concerned about design and concept generation, there are so many other alternatives that can be done here. you are looking at a maros 20 or 30 years in the future.

we need those transit connections now. we do not need it five years down the road or 10 years down the road. and we need the housing now, but we do not need to demolish sound existing family units, just to bulldoze them and build up as high as you can without looking at existing towers. those are not retrofitted. what has been done in independent analysis is to look at these projects. i am reminded only of a book that was read to me by my father. i will put it on the overhead. "the biggest house in the world take a simple issue here. it is about bigger is not always better. in this project, they are showing you a an extreme version of a green sustainable project, but it is far from that. i think you should seriously reconsider. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

thank you for this opportunity to speak on the parkmerced project. i have lived in parkmerced in district 7 for over 14 years. one of the things i have heard since i have attended many of these hearings, is what i call a supposition that things will just go along nicely at parkmerced if nothing is done. the project is voted down, everything will be ok, but i have the feeling that the project were voted down, this landlord will not try again. from a business standpoint, they have made a business plan, and they would then have to go to plan b. i think it would be either massive passthroughs for the residents, or selling the property. the property is sold to a new owner, i do not think they will try this either. if the property is sold to many small owners, i think some

blocks will be allowed to be -- to deteriorate, some will be maintained, some will just be taken down and buildings split up, and there will be no vision at all in any of those cases. this vision is very positive. it is housing for the san francisco future, provides jobs, increases the city's tax base. it is environmentally progressive and family friendly. some of my friends joke that sent this is becoming a child- free zone. child-free cities cannot continue to exist. it takes care of current residents with more neighborhood services and businesses, new apartments without rent increases and without passthroughs. you will never have this opportunity again. please support the park merced project -- the parkmerced project. >> i am representing the newly organized tenant organization

that is against this development. parkmerced action coalition has come about as a result of this horrible plan written by developers who are greedy and totally out of contact with the existing people there and the existing property. i would like to let each of the members know here that there is no such thing as a minor change in this developers program. there is no such thing as a major change. it affects my life. my home is my home, and it is my life. that does not affect you, you see. to think that my home is being considered to be torn down because of some developer's

agreed. it is not right, and it never has been, and it never will be, and the role of our organization is to stand and fight and continue to fight to keep our homes. i had a few words here i have written, and a few words from one of the articles from a newspaper, and i will just take them -- another minute, i am hoping. the developer's ambitious and greedy 30-year plan would destroy the site that now constitutes parkmerced. it would destroy 1683 rental apartments in the 11 massive residential towers and tear down 1530 apartments that are presently townhomes. with the developer fails to understand is that in every one of these buildings are human beings. we are here fighting for our homes because we are human

beings. thank you very much. supervisor mar: there are copies the supervisor elsbernd has provided that are sitting up on the counter. please come forward. i'm going to call several more names. [reading names] >> the founder of the house of rothschild i'd 7000 said many brilliant men who have also to business plans -- he always believed in looking into what they had done in the past. warren buffett, 200 years later, made very similar comments. if it does not look good in the newspapers the next night, you

do not want to get involved in it. in the case of what we're dealing with, we are dealing with the former ceo of fannie mae, one of the men who presided over what almost became another depression. he ran fannie mae into the ground. he is now the ceo of fortress, the dominant partner at parkmerced. frankly, i think he should take a good, hard look at what you are dealing with. or to put it another way, do you think warren buffet or mere rothschild would want to do business with these people? i do not think they would. -- >> name is kathy, and i have lived in park merced 58 years, i am part of the action coalition. i am speaking as an