decision. this includes both reports. unless there are questions. >> thank you for your report. on the telephone relay box issue, this was before the board of supervisors. what does this go through them rather than planning? is this the administrative code? >> this was an appeal of the environmental decision. >> thank you. >> the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. this is general public comment. members of the public may address you on items that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. members of the public may addressee for up to 3 minutes. the entire category has a 15-

minute time limit. i do not have any speaker cards but i see that he does. >> i am the executive director of global city. i want to thank those who voted for the staff recommendation. i live in the mission, and many of my neighbors that a lot of work on this. we're happy to see the staff recommendation. we were glad to see the commission of all this recommendation. it is so excited about valencia. and on the staff level, we were happy to see the commission doing this. i did watch the discussion on television. and the comment was made, we cannot expect people to ride bikes. i take offense to this. they pay about -- care about the

decision that they live in. people are going to want to move to the busiest transit corridor in the city. so they can reduce the impact on the city. i do not think that is bad behavior, if you live in a rich transit area. it is not mature to not think about other people. were your impact on the planet. i do not know if i am a mature person. whatever is left. housing -- this will -- this will beat carpel housing. many of the discussions that we have at our about the question of parking. and if you put in more parking, does this affect everything? many people who supported the

planning included me, we thought we were treating a walkable neighborhood. what it seems like we're getting is a neighborhood where people drive to silicon valley. there was a study a few years ago, livable city. we were trying to find out how much funding we would need for travel behaviors. this is with more parking rather than less parking. if you had less parking, you had less driving alone. i was asking the commission to do a couple of things. follow up on the study. how does this affect travel behavior? how does this meet the goals of the stability.

there was something in the plan from octavia. if you have more parking in a project, he should have more fees and a project with less. we have more than we have with the parking spaces. i would love to hear a report. >> we're having a report on this in june. and we can ask the staff to look into this. >> this is in article 4. >> and do we have any additional public comment? general public comment is closed. >> commissioners, moving on to the a regular calendar, this is case 2010. parking, south of market. >> good afternoon. there is an ordinance before you that was from supervisor

daily and is now supported by supervisor chem. -- kim. this is to conform with contemporary policy. originally, this item was on the calendar, for february 10. the supervisor requested some opportunities through outreach. this was originally before you on february 6. the supervisor indicated that she does not intend to amend the ordinance. i will introduce her aid, to describe their intentions. >> good afternoon. i am legislative aide for supervisor kim. this was originally introduced

by supervisor daily and the office has taken this up. we have been working closely with the honor -- with the person running global cities, to establish the maximum parking limits in the south of the market to make this better with the adjacent areas. it also required to non- residents with hotel marking in the south of market, adjacent to downtown, to have a structure to discourage long-term commuter parking. we have met with key stakeholders in mission bay, and has been brought to our attention, that this is undergoing a planning process. this includes blog 800701, and

now we're asking to remove these numbers from this legislation. it is described in the planning staff report. another issue that has come to our attention, is the issue of participation in the transportation management program. there is a concern that for some business in the market -- this may unintentionally burden small business. we will work with small business to address this, as we move forward with some of the suggested changes. we will go to larger venues, the move in the neighborhood serving retail. i wanted to bring this to your attention. i want to thank the city

attorney who has the working on this, and the planning staff who have been working on this as well. we wanted to give you our thanks. >> rogers, planning department's staff. i want to go to the basis of the recommendation. all the areas that were proposed for rezoning -- these are part of the current rezoning process. if this is in the task force area, and also the port of san francisco is working on a plan as well. all these areas are undergoing future changes, but we believe that the ordinance has ended and utilities, we support the supervisors modification to

remove the mission bay zoning district because those processes have not yet begun. we do know that they have supported the ordinance. and we are also recommending approval. there are few modifications on the table. there were at least six ordnances that would be amending the same parts of the planning code. we're going to draw this to the attention of the supervisors, so that we are not undoing some recently-adopted ordinances that you have also approved. >> we may have questions afterward. i will open this up for public comment. i do have a couple of speaker cards.

>> good afternoon. i am the chair a commission basis an advisory committee. the blocks that are called mission bay -- they date back to an earlier plan that was deleted from the planning code. this was the train station -- with the property that is currently a giant parking lot. we're undergoing a massive parking project, and the giants are a participant in this plan. the euro yard has been studied by the planning department and also redevelopment because this is connected to the trans bay terminal project.

what happened was that the trains go underground and surface this is another debate that relates to high-speed rail, and this is a major failing. in the meantime, he will not be parking on the railroad tracks. we thought this was inappropriate, to leave these blocks in, even though they are not within the current mission bay plant. we appreciate the staff support of this decision. thank you. >> i served on the task force for a couple of years and the transportation committee.

this was endorsed by the western plan. we felt that this plan was a long way off. this is a project that will come forward. this is much more compatible with the ultimate goal. after the dust settled on eastern neighborhood, we realized that there was one pocket to the south of market. in these adjacent areas -- in the waterfront and the mission bay redevelopment area, in all those areas, there are no minimum parking requirements. there is still one parking space for each dwelling in that. we will bring all those items into conformity with the surrounding notion. we have a few parcels left over at 10th and mission.

there'll be no minimum parking requirements on the streets. the other piece of this -- extending the parking pricing. many of these areas have seen office grow. and there is a provision downtown, we felt that, when parking is available for the commuters, we were going to have this in such a way -- this is parking for entertainment users, to minimize commuter parking. this is the kind of parting with the greatest impact. we will extend this into some of those areas. the fourth street corridor, and within walking distance of market street. areas around the fourth.

this is some of the thinking beyond the mission bay control. there are some very old controls, written in the early '90s. superseded by the control with the areas that require less parking. the reason we want to take up this section was that you get rid of a lot of planning code. we just replace this with four words. the other thing was, you continue to go ahead and do planning. the idea of no minimum margin requirements -- this seemed like a logical thing to do. thinking this out is no big deal. the goal is trying to take out the dead wood. we're happy to wait. >> and is there any additional

public comment? public comment is closed. >> he eloquently described by sentiment, and we were supported by a very intelligent article, and i saw this in february 2011. it makes everything much easier to understand. you do not really see the subtlety of the light orange and yellow. i am delighted to see this playing into the larger context, the larger majority of us support this with a great effort, in the eastern neighborhood. i moved to approve, but i would like to ask -- you have talked about a couple of areas that were overlooked. this is in the section for

something which is for several thousand square feet. i did not know that you talked about this. is this something that you would suggest? >> the issues section 161. this requires a lot of residential district uses in the south market district. this is optional. but the way that this works is that the zoning administrator may ask that those businesses participate in a parking management program. this would get people to work -- we have moved to this section. as cycling and handing out the transit pass and so forth. this has been moved to another section. this is very open-ended. the definition says that any

retailers -- there is no size limit. several thousand square feet could be added to the transportation management, and this could be the owner of such. what if we limit the biggest and thousand square feet. this is relatively arbitrary but this is a large venue. these are the sorts of places that transportation will impact. those were the amendments that we spoke about with a small business commission. and i have indicated that there would like to see the amendment made, if possible. >> i would like to ask -- if this was just an oversight in the final drafting. this makes them an addendum, clarification and what is

addressed in this area is very sensitive. can you answer my question? >> this is a very recent addition, and i looked over the proposal. the idea of another option, for certain parcels seems like a good idea. but were for to the acting director for the department policy on this. >> because this is new, i thought we would want more time to talk about this. we could be in conversation with him as this moves forward. >> what really want to see is the discussion today, and we're happy to work with the staff before this. we have more options >> we will leave this as the approval --

with the intent, this is something that could be adopted at the land use committee. >> this is not part of the motion? >> this is for the recommendation that we would support this. this is after the staff, we would work on the details. >> we will add language to the existing motion, for the management. commissioner antonini: i am against this for the reason that this is currently written, with market octavia. the reason is because we are

going from the requirement of one-one, with the residential units, to allowing up to .75 and 121, in some instances. this is by conditional use. this almost never happens. when we have a project that may be deserving, we can get a conditional use. we are taking the big steps here. i agree that we should not require every single project to require one parking space for each residential unit. but people should have this, and they should be able to go higher. this is in keeping with my earlier remarks. you go through cities like seattle, san diego, and indianapolis, the downtown area is very calm because our

problems and not have their roots in residential parking, but rather in the parking of people moving through san francisco, which often serves as a conduit for people doing business here. that is the real issue we have. what we're doing is restricting the residential parking, oftentimes. but not addressing the real problems. as far as the business parking, you wanted a lower percentage. i would be fine with a similar kind of measure, where you allow business parking. you would allow this to be in an area that is appropriate for your needs.

a lot of the staff, unfortunately, stands this. a couple of other things that were brought up, i like the concept of higher fees. this is what we really need. we have the real transportation is dependable, and requires people to use this. on the commuter parking thing, i did not know about this. the parking management studies that were alluded to in the review, this is a wise thing. they can minimize the impact of the employees to try to figure

out ways to carpal and use public transportation. this would be wiser and i will against this. this would not require it, for the residential parking. >> commissioner? commissioner miguel: analogous to this, something recent came -- recently came to my attention, and most of you, there is a medical office building that is maintained opposite of the hospital. i am a member of kaiser. we use the garage, and when they

build the building, they were spending a great deal of money to go down this level in order to provide their own services. there is a minimal rate for people going in and out. you would normally go in and take your ticket, and there is a lobby when you leave. you can punch the ticket and you will leave. we have mount zion and a couple of other complexes there, this has totally inundated the garage. we have the parking ticket when you go in, you can get the stamp to prove that you were there.

otherwise, there is a fine of $60 before you can get your car. but this is the only way to prevent others from getting out. the long-term parking in the situation of allowing large facilities not to have their own parking when there is a need for them, the medical field where people are ill, older and coming in with children, having a more difficult time with public transportation. this has to be considered at the overall. this is not directly analogous to what we were talking about. in the future we have to think about things like this. >> i do have kaiser. if i gamble, it will be for two hours. i do have a question for mrs.

rogers. this is the proposal for change. the supervisor has taken out of some of mission bay. i also see this as the district proposed to change this. my understanding is that much of this street was not particularly when it was previously. this was not part of the eastern neighborhood. this is in the process of what is being decided upon. this seems a little bit premature for the parking facility. we have a lot of the other alphabet soup. this may still be in flux. >> much of the area along the corridor -- we are looking at rezoning for this area. the staff is working on this area and the consensus for the

department's management as a whole, these qualities are consistent with the remainder of the markets, and would be appropriate in their place if an object was there in the interim. >> this would be the interim policy. >> this is with the understanding that this may change as a result of later work. >> it would probably not be more liberalized. it is not impossible but it seems like this is premature. this may be a deterrent to the projects -- that will say to forget about this. >> i wanted to thank him and the staff of supervisor kim's office. we have had conversations over the years about how development should pay for itself. maybe we need to take more

consideration and get more consideration, as to whether or not we're going to push on increasing certain types of development when the impact is not taken into consideration. i agree with him, and his comments about if this is higher, if there is higher parking, maybe this should pay for itself. this should mitigate the impact of the increase, and the results of the project. this is something that is long overdue. i have been hearing about this forever. it would be interesting to talk to the supervisors, -- and joseph ready to have this conversation if anyone else is ready to have the conversation. >> i appreciate when you are

summarizing, and i would like to add that if we want to move to a better functioning transportation network, we have to realize that what we have dedicated to the movement of the city, the harmonious mix of people walking in transit and cars, we have to stop burning the candle at both ends. by further in heating the investment in transportation, as well as the verbal commitment, we are widening the corridors. the legislation speaks for itself and what we have to do.