comes with it. zoning encourages the aggregation of parcels, which will not maintain the quality of what is there. i hope historic preservation will be strongly with you to really bring meaning to what we do here. i do not think you can done without having historic preservation look at the village as a place, not just building by building. i think that is where the next lesson of how we progress comes from. the type of buildings we do with additional heights, mostly are too expensive to afford the type of retail and interaction people cherish. i think that is where we need to listen and learn. i hope that you will find a lot more time to come to a

conclusion. we are required to do form-based zoning, which would also look at the context of the board law, which any other infill project would occur. i do like the idea of taming the infrastructure of san jose. i hope that we can draw on defining what type of space configuration for that street is correct this overpass, i hope it is something that can happen soon. whenever i drive under the thing, i wonder what is out there. i would feel insecure walking over it because it is pretty threatening.

it is the worst example of what a pedestrian bridge should be. it is scary. i thought commissioner antonini's comment about more comprehensive looking at transportation connections in the big picture in the future we are good. i did not hear him say it needs to be resolved in glen park, but creating discussion would be very fruitful and healthy to avoid short-term thinking, which many of the previous decisions in this area were. you have the ability to look into the future. this is a great piece of work. i will try to attend one of the meetings to hear where you are going next. >> if i might, commissioner

moore. to respond to your questions and concerns about the density. we entirely agree with your sentiments and recognize this area and plan is different than many of our plan where we were looking at areas with housing opportunities, growth opportunities on the back of transportation infrastructure. we are basically looking at how can we best foster this village, which has organically produced itself and succeeded? the historic buildings in question are really just a few, and they are not the one that you may think, on diamond and bosworth. the character-giving buildings here in glen park are not historic preservation, in a sense, but they are very important for the qualities that people value. our concept is to capitalize on

the benefits of nct, not for introducing new density or growth, but for the issues of decoupling from parking requirements, which introduces conflicts with store front for utilizing what building space is there now more efficiently and creatively, if it is decouple from parking or density control, where that makes sense. we are still working on some of the particular is here, but one of the aspects is the height in the area. that was mentioned by the commissioners. on my most of our plans -- unlike most of our plans, these sidewalks are narrow, just a couple of blocks. we are recognizing there is a pretty predominance of more less 30-foot strip malls. we have not gone down to the community with this discussion yet, but we are considering

whether reductions in heights on these key, or blocks, to preserve that village character, might be appropriate, in conjunction with nct. our intention is not to induce redevelopment within glen park, incentivize those buildings that are character-giving and forced density. there is a diagram in the planning department that shows our area plants, growth projections in those plans. glen park, we have 100, maybe. this is not a housing production issue in glen park. we will come back to you with more information on that. i think we are sensitized to the issues of scale that the commissioners mentioned. that is our perspective. i think that mirrors what we're hearing from the community as well, if that makes sense.

>> when you were describing nct as it relates to glen park, i heard something differently with how the commission is react. i think you are pretty much keeping in mind some of the issues, especially the ones that commissioner moore raised. when i am looking through the housing element, of course, a lot of emphasis now on character of neighborhoods, scale, those types of issues. i think that the streets are narrow in glen park, as some of you mentioned, sidewalks are narrow, and there had been some recent developments there that does not seem in character with glen park. i wish i could remember -- i will mention some of the streets. maybe if we could avoid those

types of developments in the future. densely-packed -- i will get the street names. maybe we can have a discussion about that. it just seems completely out of character with a lot of what is there. also, i think parking is sort of an issue, but public transportation is one of the main issues. someone mentioned there lama park. because there is inadequate access to public transportation in areas up in the hills, connections to bart, some of the main transit lines, it does make it sort of ironic that part of the plans which for transit

oriented developments are meant to increase transit corridors, and yet, we do not have the infrastructure in place to facilitate that type of development. so i am beginning to think more in terms of transit first, having transit structure in place before we start to look at increasing density in some of these areas, unfortunately. i was wondering if the mta has been thinking -- you do not have to answer. i am just curious, is that something being taken into consideration? how to connect those remote areas in the city where you have a depopulation, -- where you have aging populations, to

the needs of these people, shopping, these other neighborhoods. >> i do not know particularly about that issue in terms of the hill and connecting, but the grant money that john mentioned, the $3.5 million grant, is not for increasing density, it is for transit connectedness. physical improvements to the street. this plan is different than many of our other plants. we have essentially partner with mt a through this process. you notice the vast majority of activities in the plan are transportation and streetscape improvements. it is not seen as a growth- inducing. it is more about recognizing the problems and limitations that need addressing. i do know through other discussion there are a number of systems here. of course, we are involved with

bart, bicycles, muni connections, and commuter buses, which are becoming more and more prevalent. systemwide discussions have been taking place with muni, and will continue. >> the issue that the neighbor raised -- this is an issue in a lot of different neighborhoods. this is something that does not relate to planning, but it does indirectly i guess, because it relates to parking, what not. some of the neighborhood do not have permits. you need a certain percentage of neighborhood willing to pay into a certain fund. ironically, a lot of folks are probably parking their cars in those neighborhoods to take bart to commute to work or go to the airport. i think it is a bigger issue -- it is a neighborhood issue,

obviously. it is not necessarily the type of issue we look at here. i imagine it is frustrating. we recognize there are those conflict issues, many layers of permiting, timing, regulations for meters in the area, need to be resolved. we did a rather detailed -- mta did a survey of the surrounding over various time periods. the statistics are that there is, in fact, available parking. whether it is convenient, right on diamond, or in the core of the district -- but the statistics will tell you, the perception is not there. but the information we have -- which is pretty good -- there is parking around if you are willing to walk a block or two. we see the answer as being that

kind of management of what is available on the street. we hear a lot of issues about that, inappropriate parking, some areas where the restrictions -- empty space that is not utilize because the restrictions are not practical for the circumstances. further work with mta will be needed on that. >> the idea is, people would use public transportation to get to bart -- you know what i'm saying? the infrastructure question is always -- >> this area is challenged with the constraints of space. the intersection between vehicles, fundamentally and pedestrians. there is not a lot of physical space for pedestrian. sidewalks are narrow. >> i used to live there -- >> at the corner of diamond and bosworth, people are overflowing into the traffic lanes,

literally to wait for buses. we are facing a bit of a car versus person walking -- >> i am all about transit first. i just think the parking concerned that people raise our kind of nuance. i do not drive but that does not mean we have to be insensitive to what is going on out there. >> there is practically only so much space we can provide. >> finally, i sat in on one conversation between bart, i do not want to go into the details, but i think there has been some miscommunication between bart and maybe our department, on some level. at some point, hopefully, there is better communication, so that is resolved. i am not willing to put it on anyone because there has been missed communications --

miscommunications on both sides. that is something that needs to be worked on. maybe that is something the supervisor's office will have to look at. maybe it is a separate planning process. i do not know. we will see. hopefully, it moves along in a better manner in the future. commissioner antonini? >> i wanted to add a possible analogy. i know you have probably thought about this, an urban area that has many of the elements you have in glen park, and that is the oakland area. you have a bart station, freeway. as you move north along college, passing claremont, generally it seems to be managed well. maybe i am not there at the worst traffic times, but it does seem to fit together fairly well. the one element that you have here that they do not is a second free with san jose

avenue. that is the key because there is a divider there. it constricts everything into a narrow area where you have a bit more room to spread out. i think that would be one thing to look at. the calming of san jose, widening of sidewalks, making it easier for people to move on foot between these areas, i think, is key to solving the problems there. >> director? >> i just wanted to thank john and john and the community for their work. this has been a very focused and engaged community process. it has worked quite well. i just wanted to thank you for your work on this, think the community for their diligence, so many people for coming to the meetings. it has been a gratifying process to see that connection take

place on land use issues, so thank you all. >> i guess that is it. the meeting is adjourned. >> the planning meeting will convene its second meeting at 1:30 p.m.

>> good morning, everybody. my name is ed lee. we're here today, of course, to make reappointments and new appointments to three very good commissions of the city and what i wanted to say as an outset, to

thank supervisor mark farrow here from district two, fire chief johan and his wife. john ram from our planning commission. we have other commissioners here, as well. d.p.w. is here and various members. what i wanted to say to these very fine people is that i know about volunteerism. i know that throughout my life the reason why this city is so great is because people come forward, they volunteer their time, sometimes the volunteer is maybe feeling it's not the worth the struggles you have to be on on some of these commissions and getting through the board process and all of that. sometimes it's easy. but the service is well worth it. this city could never be great if we didn't have the volunteer

work that our citizens put forward and i want to thank you for coming forward and doing this work. so today we are making reappointments and appointments on to our city's historic preservation commission, on our appeals, relocation appeals board as well as on our city hall preservation commission. i want to recognize also our immigrant rights commission director and civic engagement, adrian, you're here, as well. our good friends from our city administrator's office. so, with the historic preservation commission, we have carl hautz and andrew walfriend. they are both being sworn in today and they are reappointments so you carry forth the knowledge you already have and the experience and we're glad to have you. the newer appointment,

mr. richard johns, a good friend of mine, also, very well known in our city and again, thank you for joining the historic preservation commission. your expertise will be of great value. we also have on our relocation commission, herb kahn, mr. kahn, thank you very much, your financial expertise will be of great value and you're a new appointment. thank you. and of course, my good friend, harry kim. harry, you've been around for a long, long time. you know this city very well and i know your experience will be of great value to us, too. and of course, florence cong, joining us for the first time on the city hall preservation advisory commission and she has recently been on our immigrant rights commission, as well. and being a contractor for the city, you'll look at every crack

and you'll determine whether it's a new one or one to be maintained as a historical crack. i know your expertise will be very helpful. so, and thank you very much, everybody, for joining us, as well. is there anybody else i missed that should be here? anyway. with that, perhaps we should just get -- i'm sorry? for all of you to stand and i'm going to give you the oath. and of course, as you take this after i say aye, then please state your name and then at the end, you can state the position that you're in and as we proceed, maybe we'll begin with aye and we'll go down the row and you can announce your name. o.k.? are you all ready? all right. please raise your right hand.

i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california -- >> the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california. >> -- against all enemies, foreign and domestic. >> -- against all enemies, foreign and domestic. >> -- that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states. >> -- that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states. >> and the constitution of the state of california. >> and the constitution of the state of california. >> that i take this obligation freely. >> that i take this obligation freely. mayor lee: without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion. >> without any mental reservation or purpose of

evasion. mayor lee: and that i will well and faithfully discharge. >> that i will well and faithfully discharge. mayor lee: . >> the duties i am about to enter and during such time that i hold the office of. >> historic preservation. >> historic preservation. >> relocation appeals. >> relocation. [inaudible] mayor lee: for the city and county of san francisco. >> for the city and county of san francisco. thank you very much. [applause] all right, well, appreciate your beginning and please visit me often. we're going to close the budget

together, you're going to help me do that, as well. me do that, as well. thank you. i was just driving around minding my own business... when it came out of nowhere. suddenly, there were lights all around me. i'm like, "they're coming for me!" yeah, it was crazy. i just never thought they'd find me. not out here. it doesn't matter where you drive. if you don't buckle up, you will get caught. cops are cracking down all across the country. click it or ticket.