>> good afternoon. a weekly report on activities of the board of supervisors. this week at the land use committee they heard part of the development stimulus part two package. commissioners, you heard a couple of resolutions under that title on july 22. the first resolution that you heard at that time would establish an area plan, infrastructure, finance committee to study these finance streaks and to supervise the formation of one. the other resolution that you considered would authorize the establishment of a similar but different community facility's history. at that july 22 hearing you recommended approval of both with some modifications in consideration. this week the land use committee heard just one of the items, the maxwell resolution that would establish the committee for the i.f.d.'s and would supervise.

on this item this commission recommended that the board seek additional funding to extend the pilot program beyond the hill area and, number two, that the committee studdy the long-term effect on the general fund of this sort of earmarking monies for i.f.d.'s in certain areas this week supervisor maxwell did add language stating that the committee should analyze the potential impacts on the general fund. with that and some others, the committee recommended approval to the full board. at the full board on tuesday, they heard the castro street and c.d. ordinance which would require conditional use authorization for restaurants and small service restaurants. it would also designate specialty food establishments as permitted and would delete an unusual provision that allows fast food establishment on one parcel in the castro. commissioners, you heard that item on june 17 and unanimously recommended approval. this week the board also unanimously passed it on first

reading. also this week there were six new pieces of planning and land use legislation that were introduced. i'd like to share with you. the first two were from supervisor aliota. an interim control that would have authorization for other entertainment uses. that was an interim control. she also introduced the same control as a permanent control in an ordinance and as in all ordinances we will be bringing that before you. there was an ordinance that would eye mend the inclusionary of affordable housing program to exempt certain qualified student housing projects from these requirements in certain circumstances. supervisors introduced an ordinance that would amend the administrative code to require that a city agency or private developer that receives city funds for development projects

should prepare a feasibility study looking at providing an onsite child care center. in certain instances. so that is the administrative code amendment but it's one you may be interested. if i hear from the commission that you would like to hear that one, we will schedule that for a hearing before you. there was also an orderness that that would amend -- ordinance that would amend the administrative code. it would be prepared by city department. and there are exemptions for the commission meetings but it might have some implications on the public documents that we produce such as draft plans, etc. so, that's something if you'd like to hear it we can bring it before you but it's not a planning code amendment. so otherwise, unless you say, we will not bring that before you. there was a planning code amendment concerning the south of market special use district.

this would require that projects containing five or more units be subject to t.r.c. affordable housing requirements as established in the eastern neighborhoods plan. so that concludes the board report. if there's no questions i have a couple of communications for the zoning administrator or we can talk about the board questions now. president miguel: i would like to at least hear the details on the -- who had code -- little pieces of legislation. >> both of them. president miguel: i think they both affect planning. commissioner antonini: same thing. i believe that was electronic documents was administrative code but i think that that's important if we hear that, too, as to its practicality. >> ok. and then the zoning administrator did want to relay a couple of pieces of information to you. the first concerns a demolition determination that was included

in your pacts last week. and the second pertains to the board of appeals summary for this week. it has been the practice of the department to inform the commission when administrative approval for demolition has been granted, pursuant to code section 317. last week the department submitted a copy of an administrative approval for a proposed demolition at 580 diamond street. the department reviewed the soundness report for this property and found it to be unsound. the department also performed a historic resource evaluation response and found that the building was not a resource. the project proposes demolition of this structure and new construction of a two-unit building. the project did go -- undergo neighborhood notification and no d.r. was filed during the appeal period. and then secondly concerning the board of appeals, there's only one item that may be of interest to you. the appeal of the building permit application for 2642

height street. this would legalize a rear balcony which was subject to d.r. before you. the commission unanimously upheld the permit in september of 2009. the permit was subsequently appealed to the board of appeals. on july 10 of this year the board unanimously upheld the permit. however, the apell ant did file a rehearing request. and last night the board unanimously denied the rehearing request. the board will now issue a notice of decision and the building permit will be final. that concludes the board of appeals' report as well. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, if we can move forward on your calendar, eye ty tell number -- item number six is an abbreviated institutional mat -- master plan for heald college. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm handling the case for erin holster who is out of the office today.

this is a submission of the abbreviated master plan for heald college. planning department staff has determined that documents contain all of the information required for an abbreviated i.m.p. pursuant to the planning code this i.m.p. is similar to the ones that you've you a -- approved previously at 350 mission street. this is for their new location at 875 howard street, planning department staff recommends no public hearing be held on this i.m.p. commission. i'm available for any questions you might have. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor wish to make any comment? is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i just thought it was interesting, the list of alumni who wept to the school. i -- went to the school.

i found quite fascinating. i didn't realize it was founded in san francisco in 1863. i've seen the current building is close to where i work, it's a half a block from my office. i see lots of students going there for classes and i know it to be really valuable in changing people's lives. so, i don't think we need to have a hearing on it. commissioner antonini: i too was impressed about bird -- by their alumni and history regarding it. certainly i think that they are a great asset to have in san francisco and i think the abbreviated institution master plan looks fine to me. >> it's interesting because it is the oldest business career college in the western united states and still going strong, stronger than ever, more years ago than my memory. my mother took shorthand there.

very pre-computer. >> thank you. that would conclude this hearing. the commission has determined that public hearing is not necessary. thank you, commissioners. you are now at general public comment. at this time members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes. keeping in mind that the entire category has a limit of 15 minutes and that this category may not be used to address you on any agenda item. president miguel: thank you. on agenda public items not on the agenda, jack stewart, joan wood, rush.

>> my name is zach stewart and i kind of wish i hadn't come out here and learned about this book. i've been giving it way to a lot of people and it's cost me a lot of money. one of my friends took off for new york and took a lack at the buildings that -- look at the buildings that jane jacobs saved in gren itch village. there are a lot of them. i don't know where the h.b.c. came from, historic preservation commission, but i know the voters voted on it. and it seems to me it's a precious resource for our city. in fact, it's amazing that it happened. and it seems to be getting hit on a little bit recently. some of the people from the library commission called them weanies publicly. and think some other things happened where per happens the

commission knew -- perhaps the commission knew without resources gets kind of pushed around. and i would hope that we could all think about that commission being equal to all the other commissions in the city and not perhaps draw powers from it that it needs to perform its duties. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> hello, president miguel and commissioners. and director rahm. i'm here, i guess you could say, to scold you for your vote on thursday about the changes to the planning code. it was insulting to the historic preservation commission and one of you commissioners said that she thought maybe it was a power struggle, it reflects a power struggle between planning and

historic preservation commission. i hope that's not true. and i won't pretend to say that i've read 450-pages documentment the way commissioner sugaya did. however, after hearing his specific itemization of at least four changes that are certainly not housekeeping, i mean, really, and even miss sullivan told you that the zoning administrator, your predecessor, wanted to eliminate a requirement for enforcing noncompliance because nobody was observing it anyway, i mean, that's not housekeeping . that's a sub stantive change. for you to -- substantive change. for you to to vote on all of the code changes to send to the board of supervisors is really kind of shocking. it would have been quite easy, i think, for you to delete

articles 10 and 11, i was present at historic preservation commission. commissioner martinez said it would take eight hours to review them. the public -- to review them in public. and they only had an hour, their meetings are limited in a way that yours are not. i understand that this issue has been probably settled as of last night, about 9:00 in the evening, of the new director of heritage has come to an understanding that you'll have a chance to consider articles 10 and 11 in conjunction with the historic preservation commission and i certainly hope that that's true. i will believe it when it's in writing and i'm here to ask you, i'm sure this is -- to revote and not pass -- not let your vote stand that the whole thing is going to the board of supervisors. thank you. president miguel: thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 39th avenue and gary. i'm a homeowner and taxpayer and resident of the city. i'm also a member of carpenter's vocal 22. i wanted to thank commissioner lee for his service as myself and several other members did last thursday. and i hope you'll all use your influence to see that his replacement is equally committed to putting san francisco residents to work at union construction jobs. commissioner lee's done an outstanding job there. if you don't have a replacement for him, is there any chance he could be continued temporarily in his position until you do have a replacement for him? thank you very much. president miguel: thank you.

is there further general public comment? >> good afternoon. howard wong speaking for the board of san francisco tomorrow. we trust that a deliberate and expeditious process will craft amendments to arls 10 and 11 -- articles 10 and 11 to fulfill proposition j's establishment at the historic preservation commission. with 2,000 such commissions in the united states, many with decades of history, hopefully we can evaluate and adopt that best practices and lessons learned. a strong historic preservation commission will maintain healthy balance in protecting san francisco's historic and cultural resources. a major economic resource that attracts 16 million visitors who spend $8 billion annualy.

a strong historic preservation commission may well avoid the mistakes of the past, the loss of the fox movie palace, for instance, which would have been a key element of the maintaining the revitalization of the mid market area. the building on union square, one of the finest buildings i've seen in pictures, in vegas memories also, which had a very fine preservation option that could have included a department store while maintaining that fine building. the loss of the city of paris department store on union scare, another fine component of that whole composition of the square. and the loss of an entire victorian neighborhood in the western edition and the loss of the cultural values of the many, many square acres, square miles of this city for really

economic reasons and not for societal or cultural benefits. i know that working, having been on the heritage board and having had been on the review committee for many years, that preservation and development and economics are not at odds. that many developmenters who came before the issues committee were often very amazed that we could find solutions that actually benefited them but were also very beneficial to the preservation as well. with sustainability now becoming a very common commissioner veronese: badge in planning and preservation -- verbiage in planning and preservation, the building is the one that exists. president miguel: thank you. >> i'm going to give some

introducery remarks for my client. i've had a lively exchange with the department of d.b.i. around a issue that you don't even know about as commissioners. and that is the difficulty the public faces in getting copies that are real copies for plans by the planning department. it's different from the 311 notice plans. it's the real plans. and there has been a lot of frustration that has borne itself out in half a dozens of my cases where the other side will not give you a set of the plans so that you can do models, you can verify information, you can find out if there's a difference between what was given to d.b.i. and the planning department. and i think we're in the resolution, i've been talking as well as to vivian day who is the head of d.b.i. there's a lot of confusion at a staff level on whether plans are sank sant and may not be

copied. and every time you run up against this civilian -- civilians run up -- if i run up against it i can figure out how to get around it. but regular people that file for d.r.'s that don't have attorneys, that don't know how to plow through the bureaucracy have frustrating times. and there needs to be something in writing that says what the law is, plans just for those of you who aren't architects when a plan is issued, they're protected and they can't be copied. but in the review process, if they can't be copied you can't comment on it and it is not an adequate solution to tell a person to have their architect come down there and sit in the department and they may not copy it but they may evaluate multipages that have lines awl and all of that. i'm hoping we're getting a resolution. but it's an issue that goes on

behind the scenes and you don't see it. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional general public comment? if not, general public comment is closed. director. >> thank you. i just -- and i meant to say this earlier, the public comments reminded me that yesterday afternoon the commission president miguel asked me to bring back the comments of the historic preservation commission to this commission on the recent legislation before that legislation is submitted to the board. the h.b.c. is scheduled to take up that legislation for the second time next wednesday and they may or may not act at that point but we will wait until those comments are available to have a hearing so there can be a discussion about that. if we are not able to schedule that in september, because september is becoming a pretty tough month on your calendar, there is a tenttive joint hearing between the two commissions on october 21 which

we could use for that purpose as well. but i just wanted to confirm that we will not submit that legislation to the board of supervisors until you have had a chance in a public hearing to comment on and review the h. combrmplet's recommendations. president miguel: we'll try and bring it back here prior to the joint hearing. >> thank you. commissioners, if we could move forward on your calendar. to item number eight. case number 2009.0187-t. department sponsored planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. commissioners, this is an item that the department is proactively bringing before you. we had identified several issues around our car share controls that demanded clarifications. a small team has been working on this issue. joining me today at the hearing is sharon lye and kevin guy and

i am extremely grateful to this team for lending their talents, their energy and their enthusiasm to this work. it's been very meaningful and helpful to me. my presentation today will cover the sequence that led us to today as well as a summary of the items that are before you for action. there's also an informational memo in your packet that i won't go over in detail but that we can discuss if you have any questions. first let's review the history. on april 8 of this year, the planning commission considered a draft policy that would update building controls related to car sharing. at that april hearing, you also reviewed the draft at that time, zoning administrator, that made clarifications to the planning code. at that hearing the commission embraced the proposed policy changes and you asked that we go further. at that hearing you requested that additional changes be considered and legislative amendments to the planning code. on june 10 the commission approved the resolution that established new commission

policy regarding car share and publicly announced at that time your intent to codify some of the zoning administrator bulletin changes through amendments to the planning code. at that hearing you did initiate five amendments to the planning code and you authorized the department to provide notice for today's hearing. now let's talk about some of the content of what has happened and what you will consider today. to review the policies that you adopted through resolution 18106, established that it was the policy of the commission to set replacement ratios that balance benefits of new projects with the replacement of existing car share spaces, to affirm the appropriateness of existing stads -- standards but also enable the commission to slightly increase the car share requirements when you make certain findings. to also acknowledge the benefit of onstreet car share spaces and to request further exploration and analysis of onstreet car share parking by

the city. in addition to making these policy statements that resolution also initiated amendments to the planning code would thank would codify three changes that you reviewed in the draft bulletin. number one, to establish the car share shall generally be permitted in the same manner as residential parking, including allowing the voluntary conversion of residential parking to car share. number two, expanding the commercial parking requirements to all zoning districts. and number three, establish that car share may satisfy or substitute for required parking but would not be counted against maximum parking. resolution 18106 went beyond that. you also as a commission requested that the ordinance that is before you today make two more amendments. number one, amend the code to include the promotion and encouragement of car share services as another option for transportation management

programs as offered in section 163. and two, to amend the parking requirement to enable the commission to require car share memberships be provided for future -- to residents of future projcts when that project exceeds the permitted levels of parking. lastly, resolution 18106 also requested additional information be provided to you about three issues, car share monitoring, car share controls and the redevelopment agency and car share control of croles and affordable housing. in your packet today, the memo address these three issues. so today you will consider a resolution to approve the draft ordinance and many of the planning code requirements for car share as discussed at your june 10 hearing. the draft ordinance has five changes. three from the bulletin that has now been adopted and two that are at your request. as described in your packet. the department recommends that

you recommend approval of this ordinance to the board of supervisors so we can discuss the issue within and potentially codify it. and i'm happy to go through our specific recommendations in more detail, why we are recommending approval, if you wish, and if you're well acquainted with those recommendations we can move on to public comment. president miguel: thank you. i have one card on public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and supervisor lee. this is the last public comment from me you'll ever hear. it's another great moment. i just wanted to comment on this policy. we're actually very supportive of car sharing as a demand management tool. if you look at section 150 of the code, that actually says why we have minimums and maximums for parking. it says the goal of the parking requirements in the planning

code to have enough to satisfy demand but if you have too many that contributes to congestion. so the idea is there's a sweet spot in there where you can minimize congestion. as a transportation nerd i would say the worst vehicle trips are ones that occur during the peak period. these are the trips to and from work. the reason being that's when the roads are most crowded -- crowded. so we -- we think car share something a great tool to try and demand -- provide transportation choices but to manage transportation sensibly and especially to reduce those commute period trips. the other thing that section 150 says is, of course we're a transit-first city and all of the parking requirements we should do should be compatible with that. that's our mode of choice and priorities for use of city streets. so to that end we actually support a lot of directions you're going in. there are some things we recommended. we actually had second thoughts about things we recommended and would ask you to consider things. one is that the car share membership not be included as a

requirement if you exceed the maximum. the reason being we don't want you to see the maximum permitted. the best tool you have for managing congestion in this city is the maximums that are in the planning code. every time you exceed them you cause more congestion. car sharing won't mitigate. that the thing that will mitigate that are the things this commission's spoken to numerous times. it was in the c-3 legislation. there should be a fee on parking spaces in excess of the minimum and that should go towards the things that really do mitigate the effects of those additional trips. the cycling, transit and walking. those are the things that -- those are the modes that are impacted by excess automobile trips, not car sharing. we say, you know, stop putting projects in excess of the minimum but then also the mitigation for that should be really bike, pedestrian and transit money and projects that protect road space for those modes. second recommendation is that

both commercial and residential spaces should be allowed to be voluntarily converted. again, we're saying there's minimum parking requirements for commercial uses. what the effect of the proposed policy is, you're saying, no, that should be reserved for a drive-alone commuter when instead it could be used to house a car share car. we're saying no. actually the car share cars could be a really greated a junction for folks who don't want to drive to work. we're saying you should voluntarily allow people to convert their required commercial spaces to car share spaces if they want to. they don't have to, just like with residential. but we say, extend to commercial as well. third, the car share spaces shouldn't count against maximums and so, again, the car sharing spaces should count against maximums. so, don't allow more spaces overall because there's car share spaces in it. no one's going to enforce this. no one's going to enforce this. so, just the maximum should be