district. we're recommending it is a c.u. instead. recommendation no. 11, the ordinance makes changes to section 132, which covers improvements to the public right of way when certain things are done to a building. the department recommends removing existing regulations were there is a change of use that involves more than half of the building floor area. we found this difficult to enforce, especially since a lot of the projects can be approved over the counter and do not have any of their review process. it is not a very effective way to do this. we're also recommended other changes to the section that clarify certain provisions and allow for exceptions when required improvements are in feasible. these have come about through implementation of this section and recommended by the city wide department. a list of them is in the

ordinance. recommendation no. 12, we would just like the board of supervisors to consider in the implications that adding the embarcadero to the scene extreme districts would have an effect on the waterfront. it is not clear if it would have a negative impact, but we would like this look at a little more thoroughly. in the event the america's cup would put up signs larger than 200 feet, which would be limited under this. recommendation no. 13, the proposed ordinance seeks to combine the washington post- broadway special use districts into one district. what this does is make wholesale establishment of permitted use in the entire washington

broadway s.u.d. this would prohibit commercial uses in the residential units. this would still be allowed in the c2, which we think is a more appropriate place to have that use. finally recommendation no. 15. the code has different criteria for publicly-owned and privately-owned excess three parking. we feel the land use impacts for public parking garages are the same regardless of who owns them. the department recommends merging the criteria so their subject to the same restrictions and requirements. that are the recommendations. i am happy to take questions that you have. president all lolague: andy tho.

>> good morning, commissioners. in regards to this legislation that is being postponed, i appreciate the supervisor's office for that, because there is a situation where even though there is existing code for the changes for group housing and for non-conforming buildings, there will be waivers. there will also be a rear yard a new section called planning sections 307hd.

the zoning administrator will be allowed additional powers, and it will affect some of the existing legislation, especially the low-density lots i suggest of that we look at the legislation very carefully. i hate to pester you. it is probably the third time i have come up on this one, but here is more documentation. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. this is unusual. for me anyway. i have concerns in regards to the zoning administrator authorities with this change. not that i did not trust mr.

sanchez, but someone in the future it may be someone we do not trust. to give but one person the authority to waive open space parking requires -- it is my understanding when he makes that decision there is no recourse. i would like to have clarification on that. i think public hearings are vital and necessary. this is something that needs further study, and i hope in the future we can meet with supervisor chiu's 8 and the department to clarify these changes. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> good morning, commissioners. i know this will be coming back to you in a month, so i will be brief. i will reiterate the very strong support for this ordinance. it is full of good things for encouraging every day bicycling. iyou know everything from rationalizing the code to require parking in buildings so that more projects will be bringing parking and making it easier for developers to bring park -- by parkinbike parking is wonderful. also very pleased to see the notion of having the planning commission committed to require project letter seeking extra -- extra parking to mitigate that at nearby intersections as a

condition of approval. i think of the city placed project that came to you a year and a half ago. a lot of conversations about that project. the failure of the current process to capture the impacts we think it is by to have on pedestrian and bicycle movements in the vicinity of ultimately advocates in the project sponsor struck a private mitigation protocol. interesting, but there should be something that is official. when we're putting into much parking come of the least we can do is have the project make it safer for transit. i know this will come back to you, but let me thank president chiu, supervisor chiu and his staff. livable city, and the excellent planning staff who has been working on this. a really great piece of legislation. we will be back when we talk about it again. thank you. >> tim colan followed by linda

chapman. >> good morning, commissioners. tampim colan. i would guess over the past year, was gracious enough to come down and make extended detailed presentations on this topic to our regulatory affairs committee, and i have to say the response was pretty much that is really reasonable. really like the direction it is the way. it makes a lot of sense. a lot of small changes, and we think it is a welcomed step forward for a more sensible use of are very scarce -- very scarce land. we love the incentive for on- site affordable housing. and we like how it emphasizes

alternative the te transportati and of a clear sense of where the direction of things are going, it reduces emphasis on private audits. it is inescapable that is where cities are going. we also love the changes that have been made to allow grandfathering. we saw projects we like that were good. i think it is fair that they be allowed to go under the old rules. we think this is pointing a good direction for the city. i think supervisor chiu and tom should be commended for the work they do. we would call, all, which is a term of esteem and height

approval for someone who takes the planning code and gets in and works with it. we like where it is going. >> good morning, commissioners. we represent priority parking. again, party parking -- priority parking strongly object the proposed elimination of the longstanding provision under section 184 of the planning code that allows for the continued operation of parking lots our grandfather when the downtown plan was passed. these parking lots have been in legal operation for over 25 years. we think the changes proposed to stop are positive, but we still think it is a mistake to allow these businesses to go out of business in five years. generally legal non-conforming uses are grandfathered. characterization should be rare

exception to the role when particular circumstances limit the war of the use. -- the limits of the conditional use. we understand it may be possible to obtain additional use operation for parking on a approval basis. conditional use operations are subject to appeal. the conditional use authorizations would be for individual parking lots on a two -year basis. it is possible they could possibly be in your queue. i also expect this to be an enforcement issue. at a bare minimum the two-year time for conditional use authorization should be extended to at least five years as

recommended by staff, preferably longer. however, instead we respectfully request that this commission respecrequest the board to let t conditions dictate if and when it is appropriate for the parking lots to be developed. for some that may not be the case. for example, the nordstrom parking lot that was specifically for that purpose. i would also like to say we look forward to have the opportunity to meet with supervisor choose office on this. i think that will be really helpful. thank you. >> linda chapman from nob hill neighbors and the coalition for san francisco neighborhood land use committee. rose began talking about this, some kind of special provision, something we really need to know about. then i discovered it this week.

and i do not assume this is going to be a bad thing. from what i have been able to see, it looks as if there is a lot in it that may be good, but certainly people need to know. i saw some things about van ness and reducing parking, which would be good, and then i saw things about this see c3 distrit that i used to live in. it would be a bad thing to raise parking there. when i was walking around nob hill looking at the forms that are there in connection with our attempts to resurrect the little church and built next to it where you would not be able to do the kind of open space and exposure requirements that you could in the richmond or sunset, i had the idea that we should look at these things that would work on nob hill in the past

were building space each other across narrow valleys and open spcacace was treated differentl the first i heard of this was this week. i have not been able to down load it on the computer, and i cannot print it because it is too expensive. we do need a little time to look at it. although maybe the neighborhood associations that i go to would not be all that interested, certainlycsf csfm would be. i can see where some of the things would be good in my neighborhood, and i can also see why they might be alarming and other neighborhoods. >> diane osheema. followed by patrick kennedy.

>> good morning. i am diane osheema with the port of san francisco. we read here on the last hearing on this item. we want to express our thanks and appreciation to your staff. i think they have done a masterful job of putting this together. staff in particular has been very supportive to the issues we raised before you at the last hearing. i did want to submit for the record that we did share this with the port commission back in november, so we briefed them on the issues we brought before you. they were in concurrence with what this that assessment had been that we presented to you in october. we're very happy with the direction that the recommendations are going in and would like to work further with your staff and take advantage of

the particular languages on the planning code as it relates to shifting the waterfront design review and waterfront design advisory committee process to a broader extent on all port property. we also wanted to applaud some of the catches that errant pick up in his analysis regarding some of the sign provisions. -- that erin picked up on in his analysis regarding some of the sign provisions. there are things we want to make sure we accommodate it the city approves the project. furthermore there are other provisions about this legislation at that we think might be -- might provide tools that would assist the ports efforts to preserve the historic peers and historic resources within the

embarcadero natural resources areole within the waterfront. we would like to take advantage of the time extension to work with supervisor chiu's office to see whether we can move that forward. i will submit these come in thank you very much again for all your attention to this. we will stay tuned. -- i will submit these, and thank you very much for all of your attention to this. >> good morning, commissioners. we believe this is a great piece of legislation, just speaking to the housing component. it will do a lot to encourage certain general plan and specific area plan goals, which are dense residential and downtown. mixed in come within a certain project. in particular, the f.a.r. provision will encourage developers like us to provide

units on site. the last few years the developer runs the calculation, and it costs less to the project to pay the fees. we will simply start providing more units on site, so you will have tmixed income units. also getting rid of the density cap is an artificial cap, but you still limit the scope of the development by the height and the dwelling unit exposure and open space and all of the other components. the commission in the practice of giving cu's anyway. we think it is great, and i will be back in february to talk again. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeff hamilton, director of government relations.

the exploratory of new project was approved unanimously by the port commission in 2009 and this commission. we're happy to report we just passed a 50% completion milestone, so we're very excited about that. as part of the approvals, the court granted a 16-year license, beginning once the museum is open for up to 200 spaces at nearby 321. i want to take a moment to emphasize that we are committed as an institution to ensuring that the majority of employees and visitors arrive by public transit or walk or bike. our employees will be encouraged to use public transit. we're very excited about that. however, and a minimum number of parking spaces is required economically for us, and also for us to deliver the mission.

the original draft of today's proposed legislation would have caused non-accessory parking lots in c2 districts to become non-conforming uses that would need to be eliminated within five years and 90 days. this would really have been untenable for the explorator ium. we brought this to the attention of president chiu and planning staff and we are assured by his commitment to find a resolution, which we appreciate. we believe the recently- submitted staff report provides language we can support. our understanding of the staff proposal is it requires additional use permits for new parking lots, but it site section 178 a-2 of the existing planning code as allowing existing wats -- and

keep looking in your direction -- to continue as permitted uses. under this analysis, existing lots are not non-conforming and can continue in existence without triggering a conditional use permit. we respectfully request the planning commission support for a key staff recommendation. thank you. >> thank you. kris pemberton, followed by ten chao and peter cohen. >> good morning. we definitely have concerns about eliminating surface parking lots in san francisco, but in addition to that, we're also very concerned about the weight restrictions included in the planning code. they would like to have as eliminate mostly perking altogether and impose a long-

term rate that would essentially take a parker from $350 per month, which currently exists in the downtown area, to somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,600 per month to park your car. i do not know if anyone has studied the economic impacts. many of the people need their car for trips inside for convenience, and also for salespeople, lawyers that have to get to and from court. someone should take the time to go through and see what kind of impact the quadrupling of the monthly parking rate will do to these types of firms. will the move out of the city? very likely -- very possible. that will impact many of office buildings and have a devastating impact on the economy.

i think someone should take the time to do real economic study of how the rate restrictions will impact the economy. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is kris pemberton, and i am an architect here in sentences go. our firm does a lot of residential projects. i would like to speak in favor of the legislation, really with respect to two things. the f.a.r. allowance that would seek inclusion very housing would not be included. i think that is a very good thing as we look at projects, because it will create neighborhoods where you have affordable housing on site together with market rate, which is that a great thing for the

city i think. i am in support of that. i am also in support of the allowance that you removed the did to the limit for these sites, because you will create more housing in these neighborhoods, which is really the intent of the plan. i am speaking to support that. thank you. >> my name is tin chao. i am here to express our opposition to the legislation, and the lack of our reach to the community relating to this impact. sometimes i wish you could read chinese newspapers so you know what happens in the community. yesterday the largest chinese newspaper in the bay area has a four-page article on this. the title is "david chiu, zoning

legislation moving forward hearing today with no public our treach." in relating to chinatown, this will impact chinatown greatly, could delete the small business community. chinatown has the highest density of commercial areas in the city. this legislation calls for the beginning of housing in the chinatown area, the requirement of providing recaps screenings. i have no idea why rooftop screening is a priority. and the article basically talks about people getting blindsided by the legislation. also, the impact. there are lots of plastic awnings. i think when legislators are

pushing for legislation, we teen -- we need to know what are the impact in the community. i am talking about the first time we heard about this was in may, over half a year. people got to know about it through the newspaper. so i think we need to -- the planning department needs to do a better job of moving this legislation. when it comes down to it, it is all about respect. i do not think this is the model for community planning. thank you. i am submitting this newspaper, and also this letter. thank you. > good morning, commissioner

peter cohen, from the council of community housing organization. i have something for the commission. this is a letter that we prepared from a very short and sweet a few months ago to supervisor chiu is office that relates to the commission staff. i want to make sure that it got to you because i did not see it in the packet. in short, this is a piece of legislation that is trying to do many different things. there seems to be six different topics or six different ordnances that are bundled together. it is hard for me to say the organization opposes it, because there are so many pieces. we have serious concerns about the way this came together, as well as the content. it is something that reaches very far from simple things like awnings and canapes and things

like parking controls to excess reuse provisions to affordable housing, and everything in between. transferable development rights. this is in my decade or so one of the most incredibly-ambitious pieces of public policy that i have seen, and the scope of what it is trying to do all at once. i would caution the commission to think about how many different parts of very serious public policy and code are being dealt with, and whether it is possible to really grow up with all of them simultaneously. that said, i have heard from tim colan that they have the benefit of very extensive briefings from the architect of much of this.

the council has had no briefings in does not been consulted in any way. we are perfectly open in prepared to do that. when it comes to provisions about affordable housing, i think that is an area that we know a bit about. it is very unclear to us why in this forum and with no real dialogue there would be an attempt to improve inclusionary housing dialogue. i do not see the mayor's office of housing here to provide feedback to you on housing policy. i think also it is important to point out that the inclusion very housing update is starting in january. there will be a long process. the planning department has a staff. it will be run by the mayor's office of housing. there is a technical advisory committee that has been appointed, as well as our organization