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 as we prepare to dig deep, both into the technicalities, as well very, as well as the policy framework for inclusion mary. if there is the thought that we need to incentivize, then that is the form that needs to happen. san francisco has never incentivized the provision of on-site inclusion every housing units, other than creating an ever where it makes it more sweeter. that is the way it should work. if it is not working, we should

figure out how to tweak things or create carrots, to do that. doing that, and unilaterally in this way, i would just, is not the proper way to do it. i have heard this from a to development leaders, turn your attention to the comptroller's report that just came out a week or two ago. it review the fiscal year 11 development impact fees. in particular, the impact of the feed their furl ordinance that this part of the commission was faced with approving a year-and- a-half ago, advanced by the mayor's office of economic development under the previous administration. it is quite astounding to look at what the report tells us. i am not sure -- commissioners, i did not bring copies.

but there is a simple summary table. last year, there was a total of $14.5 million of deferred fees. $11.5 million of those fees were affordable housing. combat, in great measure, aside from using that cash flow, is why we are seeing fee-outs. it is obvious, that is the way to go. it is tough to incentivize this in the context of the feed the furled program that we could change it. it could just be an incentive that is unnecessary. for a variety of reasons, i think we have to tread lightly about any modification to affordable housing policy. i would ask that this either be taken out of the ordinance, at

the supervisors be passed, or that we have a much deeper conversation about the context of this in the conclusiona -- inclusionary update. >> is there any other public comment? >> local real-estate developer. i generally support this legislation, but one thing to did catch my eye that i wanted to bring to your attention. early on, i heard the legislation included some relaxation of the excess reuse under section 204 of the planning code. oftentimes, excess reuse in commercial space takes the space of mezzanine space. i have heard the proposal was to expand the accessory allowance from 1/4, where it is presently, to one third, which basically allows the excess race pace with the mezzanine definition under

the building code, which seemed to make sense to me as a policy move, but then i would disappointed to see that that proposal was restricted to only the sea-2 and rc districts. as somebody who cares about enhancing flexibility were ever reasonable, and as someone who cares about implementing the adapted area plans, which the planning commission has been -- shown such leadership in, i would like to see that same concept applied itself to the pdr districts. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. i am here to speak about the c- three housing issues that others have spoken about. what is important to realize is the recent palmer decision out of los angeles made a big

difference in the ability to do on-site affordable housing. part of what the city attorney has determined is that, in order to do a on-site affordable inclusionary units, the city need to provide a bonus. in one of the few districts where housing is restricted by f.a.r., there is the ability to provide a density bonuses to accommodate this type of housing. the way to do that is to provide an f.a.r. exemption. that is exactly what this legislation does. it is not so much that is incentivizing or favoring on site, it is simply allowing the onsite option to work. right now, if he tried to a rental project, you cannot do on site affordable housing, unless you can establish some sort of incentive or concession that the city has provided to the project.

what this legislation does this implies that, so that c-3 districts, where there are density bonuses, there is a built-in density bonus that allows you to expand on that. all the wise, you could not do it. it does provide an important means of encouraging a mixed income housing in downtown districts that is where a lot of the new high-density rental projects are being proposed around the civic center area, ninth street, van ness, polk, these very large rental projects that provide a large number of rental housing. if they cannot get an f.a.r. exemption for their inclusionary units, they will not build them. it will be 100% affordable projects. whether that is a good thing or bad thing, i am not saying. i am just saying the current ordinance allows the on-site option, but the state law does

not allow it for rental projects on must there is a density bonus built into the code. it is important to have this provision and i would encourage you to look favorably upon it. not some sneak attack by the development community by supervisor chiu's office. >> commissioners, my name is patrick kennedy. i am and developer from berkeley but i'm doing two or projects in san francisco. i am very familiar with the development restraints in the c- 3 area. i have a big rise project for ninth and mission and doing a low-rise identity card-free project on harriet street. i would encourage you to adopt these amendments in their entirety because i think they are going to be very helpful in

supplying, encouraging, and facilitating development in the c-3 areas. i think this is a good thing for what i view of -- at least five reasons. new development and a part of the town that can accommodate it. there is great transit and capacity to house new people. it also relieves pressure from outlying areas. the 20,000 new .comers that are coming have to live some place. if we can redirect a lot of their housing to these areas, they will not be putting pressure on outlying neighborhoods and single-family homes, raising the eyes of -- price of those. it will also revive housing close to jobs. we all know that is good for the city, transit, and good for the environment. a third matter is it would create huge number -- it would go a long way to create a huge number of jobs.

both of us in the construction industry sorely need that right now. anything that the seller is the pipeline of development will be a great boon to the economy and to a lot of households in the city. a fourth reason is that this set aside, bmr units on site is a useful and successful architecture. i have built 500 units in berkeley. 25% were set aside for very low income tenants. my firm became the largest landlord of section 8 tenants in the city and had more units in the berkeley housing authority. this was all done at no cost to the city, and all of those unions stayed on the tax roll. the city got essentially 100 units of below market income rate managed by a private investor at no cost and everything state.

this leads to my last and final observation. this arrangement has the great virtue of requiring no money on the part of the city, no commitment of future resources, and no expenditure of staff time. in this age of diminishing resources, this is a valuable aspect, a self perpetuating, self-encouraging feature. thank you. >> is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions about the legislation. my first question deals with the surface parking lot. maybe i did not follow your comments correctly. it sounded like, on the one

hand, you are saying surface parking lots would be grandfathered. on the other side, you are saying that they would be subject to cu approval every five years to remain in operation. which are you advocating for? >> both, but they are different zoning districts. c-2, we are asking for conditional rather than prohibited. that would allow parking lots to operate in perpetuity. c-3, we are asking that the temporary use permit be extended from two years to five years, which will exist allow the existing parking lots to come back every five years. it would still make them a nonconforming use. if they do not get that temporary -- conditional use permit, they would have to go out of business. commissioner antonini: so one of

the two districts would grandfather them and allow them as a legal, nonconforming use indefinitely. the other district, they would have to go through the cu process every five years. >> c-2, they would not be a legal nonconforming use, but conditional. commissioner antonini: conditionally permitted that would also be subject to c-2 approval. new ones. that is the currenthat is the i was looking for. i am not sure if i have another question for you, but i have comments. if i have more questions, i will bring you up again. generally speaking, i would agree, as one of the speakers said, these are things that should be grandfathered in

indefinitely. nobody likes surface parking lots. if you look at the very top of market, lots of things are being built and service parking lots being eliminated, as it should be. the revenue they generate and opportunities they provide for businesses that may need this, businesses that depend upon them, it is important to keep in operation. i am not so sure i am in favor of the changes now being put forth, either by the supervisor, or staff recommendations. certainly, i am much closer to staff. i am just not sure we have to go through the cumbersome conditional use process every five years for a parking lot that will be anything else. no one wants to keep a parking lot. they can generate much more revenue from a use that is a

building and other things. we have seen a lot of that. we have seen these interim parking lots, when they did have the approval for their project and the project has been slow with income, they have asked for interim parking. many of these have then gone on and build the project they were intended for. that, we have to look into. i think, certainly, grandfathered projects, have to be included. i do not see any reason why -- or is it actually appropriate, and perhaps questionable. perhaps it is a matter of policy that any city should do, to try to change their rules midcourse with grandfather projects. the zoning administrator limits that have been concerned -- voices concern around those. most of those powers are given to the zoning administration.

it would allow him to have more flexibility in parking, rather than make it more restrictive. i think that is what i'm reading into this. >> this was one of the items that i wanted to clarify. this is not actually new power, new responsibility. this is an existing a story that we would otherwise use a different process. usually, through the various process. the idea of placing this in section 3078, added to eastern neighborhoods, to try to believe in terms of process, close to planning requirements, when it comes to exceptions for parking or open space. we are trying to spread those to other sections where it makes more sense. it already exists for historic buildings and article 10 districts. this would expand two buildings which are designated categories 1 through 4, and article 11, to

give flexibility there. it also does not apply when there is an expansion. this is just for a building that is an existing office building now wants to change to residential, flexibility in terms of exposure requirements, open space requirements. rather than having to go through a very process, saying that you are not demolishing part of the historic building in order to have a code compliance yard, you are instead changing the use of the building. if that very word to come before me, we would see that as a hardship. we would not want to see a historic building demolished to create this yard and open space requirement. additionally, historic buildings, and edition for not conforming uses in residential buildings. this would allow a non- conforming use to change to residential use. there would be the administrative review process

for this. i appreciate the concern about this, but this would apply only when there is no expansion of the building. you have an existing non- complying building in a residential district, something that is not currently allowed under the code. rather than having them go to a converted process to convert to a residential use, they could go through this administrative process. while there is no additional public hearing, as there would be for a very, there would be a public notice for the change of use. the decision would ultimately be appealable to the board of appeals. section 307h says the decision is part of the permit building application. it could be dr'ed to the planning commission. it is just removing part of the process. commissioner antonini: thank

you. that is something that concerned parties can continue to work with staff during the next month and make sure this clarification is worked into the concerns you had. finally, in continuing on the f.a.r. bonus for affordable housing on site. mr. battle made a good point. since polymer, we have seen almost none of this bill. it is impossible under current state law to be able to do this unless there is some sort of bonus, and this would provide a bonus that might incentivize the establishment of on-site affordable housing for rental properties that i think would be a benefit. the jury, in my estimation, is still out whether it is appropriate to have affordable housing on site. there have been situations where people have had a hard time -- especially with ownership, more than rental -- having a

different situation where they have fees connected with the ownership unit, beyond the ability of these people to pay because of the income restrictions. another way of looking at this also is perhaps incentivizing for affordable offsites within a mile of the particular building, another thing that is sometimes effective. again, this applies itself more to the ownership situation than it does to the rental situation. i think this is a promising proposal and i think it is a good part of this legislation. again, it will be considered. a couple of brief things. qualifications for people to be part of this advisory group for the port. again, it is always good to have people with qualifications.

i do not think i would restrict it to people who necessarily have to have a lot of expertise in a certain area. on commissions, it is good that we are citizen commissioners and we bring different perspectives. working with support is essential, especially in view of not only the america's cup, but other things. we have to make sure anything put into place does not have a deleterious effect on profits that are moving forward. finally, the awnings and screens, concern about working with members of the community in chinatown regarding this. certainly, not reached on the purposes of these sign changes, screen changes, making sure it is appropriate wherever it is called for. i think the legislation has a lot of promise, but i would agree with -- peter cohen

brought up the idea that it is a large piece of legislation that is very complicated. i think we're getting closer to understanding the different parts of it. thank you. commissioner olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: an unusual piece of omnibus legislation. i do not thing there is any other term for it. i appreciate what aaron, and marie, and justin, and tom has put into it. in general, i am in full agreement with the department's recommendations. i think -- i know they are thoughtful, and i think they have met many of the concerns. i will go over three or four items that i have concerns on. i am working from the executive

summary that was produced for the commission. in the section on streetscape improvements, there is a comment of removing basements that extend under the public right of way. refers to this city street plan. i know the tree planting is what is most affected by this. everyone would be loading on sidewalks with a sly or elevator. i do not know if everyone is familiar with the fact that, in many areas of the city, certainly north beach, financial district, chinatown, there are not just basements, there are sub and subsub basins used by these businesses, rented by these businesses.

i remember years ago, there was an old restaurant in the financial district. it went down three levels, with kitchen and storage and refrigeration and everything else. an interval part of the business. this extended under the street. this is true in many instances. i am just questioning this because i think if you make a major improvement to a building and you have to remove that, you would be removing much of the usable area of the commercial business that is theoretically at street level. that is one item. i noted, the original says signs for gas stations can extend above the roof line, department regulations where they could not project above the roof line.

and driving, walking around the city in the last couple of weeks, this made me take a look. i have not seen any gas station signs that do not project above the roof line of the service station. so i am presuming they would be grandfathered in, however, i am questioning whether or not this is actually necessary or woodwork. i had even seen a couple of gas stations where there was actually no building, but the sun was out there. so that provides a different situation also. the recommendation by the department regarding temporary signs for events, obviously, we are thinking about america's cup, and that has to be very definite. i think it is fairly well taken care of. i go down to the van ness

special use district, and i see , on the part recommendation, reducing the permitted high of projection signs from 24 feet to 20 feet. no, about that. but businesses would be required to turn of illumination when the businesses close. my experience with this, although not in the van ness special used district, but a flower shop in the richmond district, with a projecting sign that was eliminated, -- illuminated, i had that sign on a timer. even if i closed at 6:00 or 7:00, it would go off at 10:00 or 11:00. it was advertising for me within reasonable hours. if that was true, with a very

small neighborhood business, it is going to be even more necessary for larger businesses. so i would question that. however, i think the department has done an unbelievable job with this massive piece of legislation in their recommendations. on the whole, with these few questions, i think they are great and i look forward to february. commissioner olague: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: i am glad we are continuing the item and giving it more time to mature. there are some good things in this that are clean up language, some questionable things in it. i still have concerns, and i think that is the purpose of the continuation, to allow the supervisor and its authors to reach outo