i find it a very important thing throughout the city with the housing project being pushed through in all districts of the city. where are we seeing a sincere effort that major infrastructure projects in a lot of areas where we have low and middle income areas, such as the mission, along the 14 muni corridor or 19th avenue or geary boulevard -- how are we going to deal with all this housing being built throughout the city if we cannot do the transportation first? it reminds me of a story called "the biggest house in the world" where it keeps growing and growing and pushing and pushing, and eventually, it is stock because they cannot go anywhere anymore. when are we going to be a planning commission that is going to adequately address the transportation needs of a whole city? you may not be able to do it as

individuals. we may not be able to do it, but we are getting there. if 19th avenue is locked up, merced is blocked up, the mission is blocked up, geary is getting to that point. there comes a point where the automobile and the problems we are facing must be addressed by this commission -- by the planning department and this commission. we cannot keep growing as we are where we are going to be stuck in the shell we have made for ourselves. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on items that are not on the agenda? if not, general public comment is closed. >> thank you, commissioners. you are now on public comment category on agenda items where the public comment may have been close. at this time, and a member of the public who wishes to address

this commission on the agenda regarding a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify in the public hearing has been close, members of the public may speak at this time. the only in this relates to on this calendar would be item 10. each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes. commissioner miguel: we ready now? sorry about that. >> we met with the project sponsor about a month ago, and we agreed to terminate the need for valet parking 24/7. i thought what we agreed to was

that any time there are 50 or more attendees in the conference room at 3575, the project sponsor would have valet parking. we thought it was any time. the project's sponsors subsequently changed that and made it just during the hours of 8:00 to 5:00 monday through friday. we cannot live with that. weekends and nights are very important. the reason is that the environmental impact report specifically says that there will be four meetings a month and most of the meetings will be on nights and weekends. that is in the environmental impact report. in the meeting two weeks ago, the project sponsor said there would be two meetings a month, mostly during business hours. the project sponsor also said that the cost of those meetings would be $300,000 a year. if the project sponsor really had 24 meetings a year that they talked about last week, that

would be $12,500 per meeting. obviously, if that was the fact, we would agree to that. we would not want them to spend $12,500, but we went out in town and got a company -- a valet company that is $27 an hour. for four hours, it would cost approximately $100, which is a lot different than the $12,500 the project sponsor was talking about. we implore you to talk to the -- have the project sponsor be a good neighbor. we are trying to be good neighbors. we have to live together for a long time. this is a $60 million project. this project has 150 employees on site every day. we have to do this thing right. what we are asking is to remove the wording "during regular business hours monday through

friday except holidays 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." if we remove those few words, the neighbors will be happy. i think the project sponsor will be happy. i think the city will be happy. commissioner miguel: thank you. lee bennett, and another speaker who submitted a card without their name on it. >> good afternoon. i represent francisco heights student association, and we are south of the project, and we did agree when we met with the project sponsor that the imposition of having the parking, the original use 24/7 was financially untenable. we thought that the compromise of only having the valet during those times, which they stated would be maybe two four times a month, probably close it twice a

month, where there are meetings of over 50 people, would benefit the neighborhood. it would make the neighbors very happy, knowing that there are not 25 or 30 people circling the block trying to find parking. we see this as a simple compromise that we hope you will consider favorably. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> in case i was the person who did not put his name on there, regarding items that have been close, san francisco university's master plan is what i wanted to mention briefly. there was a memorandum of understanding between the city and san francisco state university. that has never been addressed by this commission or the planning

department in regards to institutional growth. commissioner miguel: this is this item. it is very specific in there. i know you can read it. >> on behalf of the institute on aging, i do not typically speak on these issues, but i wanted to address a couple of clerical matters raised by the last two speakers. first of all, it is unfortunate there was a misunderstanding as to what agreement was reached. my client did not agree that whenever there are events at the meeting facility that there would be valet parking. what we agreed was that during business hours -- we thought the understanding was that we would have valet parking. that was in the draft condition that staff prepared for you, so i urge you to accept the staff

recommendation. the second point -- there are 105 employees, not 150. what is important is that during times in the evenings and weekends when the ioa would be hosting events, those 105 employees are not on site. so their vehicles are gone. there are 37 parking spaces in the garage. those will be empty on weekends and evenings, and we feel very confident that those 37 spaces will accommodate the attendees at meetings. the conference facility only has a capacity of about 100 people. more than 1/3 of those can be accommodated on site, and they all tried -- unless they all tried and all drive alone. eir mentions 143 empty parking spaces, and there is no evidence that that has changed since it

was completed in 2006. the final point is that the cost of providing valet parking when it is not needed is substantial. valet companies charge for a minimum of ours. it is difficult to get them to work for only a couple of hours for a reputable valet service company. we believe the cost would be substantially higher than the estimate mr. warner provided. to give valet parking on evening and weekends when there's 37 and the parking spaces in a garage, it is a significant cost and it comes out of services that they could provide to seniors, so we ask you support the staff recommendation, and appreciate your time. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there additional public

comment on the item which has been closed? if not, public comment has been close. >> commissioners, at this time, you are at consideration of findings and final action. the public hearing for this category is closed. the item before you is item 10, case number 2010. 0583c, for 3575 geary boulevard. >> good afternoon, commissioners. although there is no staff presentation, there has been one addition to the draft motion. it is related to the ceqa finding which summarizes the memo to file that you already have a copy of, and i would like to read that finding into the record.

"the commission finds that the project as revised here is consistent with and within the scope of the original project analyzed in the april 6, 2006, final environmental impact report. the project as revise here will not bring any new significant impact, compared to those for the original project, nor will it result in any increase in severity of any of the impacts identified in the final eir. the project as revised year will not require major revisions of the final eir -- the project as revised here. we find there has been no change in circumstances and no new information concerning significant effects or mitigation measures under which the project as revise here is to be undertaken that would require major revisions of the final eir. based on these facts, the commission finds that no

subsequent eir is required. moreover, the proposed revisions are so minor in scope and tight that no addendum to the final eir is required. this concludes my summary of the findings." if you have any questions, i am happy to answer them. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner olague: i would like to move to approve those conditions. >> second. commissioner antonini: i think we have to slow down a little but on this. i have received many e-mails, as i'm sure we all have, from neighbors with concerns. i think we have gone a long way from the original conditions, which required valet parking 24/7, which is not needed unless there is an event. i think the idea that valet

parking could be provided when there is an event with 50 or more persons is not unreasonable. i do not know what figures the project sponsor might have, whether the $27 per hour is accurate or not, but even if it was a minimum of four hours, it might be $108 for a valet for an event, which i do not think if there is only a couple of events per month that it would occur on off hours. it is not an extraordinary expense. i would like to have the commission think about this a little bit. i think the neighbor's raised some valid concerns. i know the area very well. i have relatives who live in that area. i know there is a big difference between the traffic parking on weekdays and evenings and weekends, although there are still a considerable number of people who have multi-unit buildings without parking or park on the street. so it is not always the easiest

thing, so i would like to see what other commissioners have to say. at this point, i would rather see this motion modified to either require valet any time there is an event of 50 persons or more -- perhaps, modify it to weakens where you might require if you had over 80 to 100 people, for example. i put that idea out to the maker of the motion as a possible amendment. commissioner olague: i was going to say i do not think there is a need to slow down because we have had two weeks to continue to consider this, and i have heard from a lot of different sides of the equation, and i know the park commissioner came up when we look at the project originally, and we gave a lot of thought to it at that point. i do not believe that this minor revision to that sways at all from our original intent.

i do also support the addition of that -- additional language that the staff provided us with. commissioner sugaya: i would like to support commissioner antonini. i think we are kidding ourselves if we do not think valet parking is going to be required at all time. >> before i call the item, i have to ask commissioner borden, who was absent, if she has reviewed the material and is prepared to participate in this action. commissioner borden: yes, i am. >> thank you. commissioner antonini: let me be clear on the motion. the motion be staff proposes does not include the -- the motion the staff proposes does not include the valet parking on evenings and weekends, am i correct on that? then i ask that we make an

amendment. it would be 100, that if in fact there are available parking spaces on evenings and weekends that are not in use, then perhaps only events that are larger should require valet, so with the maker of the motion be ok with a revision that would require evenings and weekends at events of 100 or more? commissioner olague: i'm happy the way the motion is currently address. i guess we could always -- i do not know if we want to revisit this in a few months, but not convinced the institution has many evening or weekend events. i do not know -- staff? i'm pretty satisfied with the motion in front of us. commissioner borden: i think it is -- we are talking about 28 spaces. this is affordable senior

housing. we are asking for affordable senior housing sponsor to provide valet parking? it seems to be at odds with the values we say we uphold. i do not understand it. there is plenty of parking after 6:00 p.m. during the time when it seems to be most congested. i do not think they are having events with a hundred or more people. in the original motion, they said if it is within two years, they did not have need for all the spaces, then they could do less. they have proven they do not need all the spaces that were required initially, and required the project sponsors to provide them at a cost the sacrifices their ability to provide the houses that is the substance of the proposal, and it seems ridiculous to me. commissioner antonini: regardless of the nature of the housing, and that is part of it, there are also activities in the other part of the building, but these are social or educational

events, or whatever purpose is, and they will bring people there who will be coming, and many of them will be driving. what i was sitting with my amendment that does not seem to be accepted is only for the larger event should this be accepted, and if the sponsor is only having an occasional evening or weekend event, then the cost is so nominal that it really should not make a difference, and if it helps the neighborhood and helps congested and individual people in houses often will have valet parking if they have parties in their houses, and this is not uncommon to do, so that was my thinking on this. >> i would like to ask the project sponsor to respond to this. i believe that it is during the week that the majority of these special events occur. i do not believe that many occur on the weekends or the evenings.

>> i think the estimate is up to four events during the month, two during the day and two during the evening. commissioner olague: what was that now? >> there would be approximately two during the week when we would not provide valet parking and two over the weekend when we would prefer not to. commissioner olague: i think that is right, actually. the people familiar with that area, i believe there is more parking on the weekends and in the evenings. commissioner moore: i believe that the department has made a convincing case of why we should go with the recommendation. i do not believe that it could be managed by providing more parking spaces. i am strongly in favor of the motion as it is proposed.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval as proposed by staff on that motion. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. commissioner olague: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. >> that motion passes on a 4-2 vote. you are now starting your regular calendar with item 11, case number 2010.0514c -- commissioner miguel: excuse me, remember we were going to take supervisor maxwell [inaudible] >> [inaudible] commissioner miguel: yes, we

have had a request from supervisor maxwell as the sponsor of two pieces of legislation, to be taken out of order, which i have been granted -- which i have granted. in 18 and then item 16. to the press that are here for another item, i apologize to you for that time change, but this commission has always gone along with supervisors on their particular legislation. >> ok, taking item 18 out of order, 18a and 18b, d ba -- the bayshore boulevard home improvement district. >> thank you for accommodating the calendar in request. i did know that our work was of

great importance, but i am surprised a little bit by the level of media attention for this, but we will roll with it. i wanted to briefly laid out some background context for this item. i think this representation from supervisor campos' office is here as well. i would like to share some comments, and staff will walk through the mechanics of the legislation in front of you. the conversation about the need to focus on and invest in the bayshore corridor has been ongoing for many years. about 10 years ago, with the access site, the conversation intensified. the legislation before you today is really one of the products of that ongoing dialogue. clearly, members of the project area committee have been key voices for a 10-plus years.

more recently, a focused effort sponsored jointly between supervisor amiano and supervisor maxwell began, and is now a partnership with supervisor campos' office. again, this stems more immediately from board of supervisors' action from about a year ago the call for the development of a more specific revitalization strategy for the area. that action and vision, a process that could result in a number of products, one which is before you today, clarifying the land use controls instead of design guidelines for the area, economic action plan among other implementation documents. to produce those items, we have been working in close collaboration between city agencies, including the mayor's office of economic workforce development and the redevelopment agency, of course, as this area is in the

redevelopment agency. and support as well when we needed it from the dpw, so the large brush stroke is that it has been an act of collaboration between communities across the hall and supervisors' offices involving multiple agencies. and one last point, if i could -- there will be in communications coming directly from the supervisor's office regarding several properties within the study area that are owned by -- under single ownership by elements of the goodman family, and the letter will acknowledge that there is certainly an opportunity to look at those sites for and support a potential catalyst development of some of the commercial activity that could involve some vacant pdr properties that are adjacent across from lumos street. the supervisor does not feel at this time that it is appropriate

to modify the district because the concept has not been part of the community dialogue over the past year, but she is supportive of further community vetting of that idea, and she would be happy to have a conversation about that moving forward. i would be happy to answer questions after your staff presentation. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here representing supervisor david campos. our office and supervisor maxwell's office have been working for well over a year on this bayshore corridor project to develop a plan to revitalize the corridor. while we have at times had different approaches, even talk about different thresholds are brown square footage, what we have come away with after the yearlong process is a shared set of goals arawn supporting some of the existing businesses on bayshore boulevards, minimizing the environmental impact, especially around traffic

congestion, and bringing in businesses that create new jobs for the residents of bayview/hunters point and neighboring communities. the plan, while it is not before you today, it is important we work on land use and physical condition business retraction, safety and cleanliness, and parking street traffic and transportation. i also want to point out that staff will be talking with you a little bit about some suggested changes to the draft ordinance that will greater reflect an emphasis that most of the supervisors' offices have had on local hiring. as you know, it has been a robust discussion among members of the board of supervisors to increase local hiring, and in this bayshore corridor, we want to make sure that any projects that are significant are also at hearing to the bayview/hunters point employment and contracting

policy. i want to end my remarks by thanking the various departments that have been part of this process and also supervisor maxwell's office. in particular, i would like to thank the planning department's staff who have gone above and beyond to help us out in this process. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to very briefly go over the two actions before you today. the first one is a combined zone ordinance introduced by supervisor maxwell. the second one is the adoption of the design guidelines. you should have received updates to both of those documents. if i could have the overhead, please. that is right there.

this is just generally to orient you. highway 101. bernal hill, and bernal heights and the rest of the bay view area. the project area covers some very distinct areas. the majority of this is along bay shore boulevard, and a very small selection of parcels right on cortland. just for clarity say, i will talk about the parcels right away. there is a total of eight of them. they are zonedcm, -- they are sound cm, any proposal is simply to clean up and rezone them to pdr 1g. we have worked with supervisor campos' office to make sure this

zoning will fit their needs in the future. perhaps a simple continuing of the industrial cleanup that has been going agee indiana cove cleanup that has been going on for a few years now. the larger area is a long bayshore boulevards -- along bayshore boulevard, which is a very permissive zoning district. it also has the protection zone overlay on it. the proposals there is to rezone the old m1's to pdr 2 which is the prevailing zoning in the industrial area to the east, and to adjust that that would just extend along the stretch of baho