might be affected by this. to my knowledge, and i am quite close to many of the port tenants, along with chinatown, basically, people do not know about this yet. i am hopeful that people can understand this. i am still perplexed at the process of lumping so many unrelated things together, and you have one or two great things, but you would let minor awnings get in the way and kill a large aspect of it. i am in favor -- this commission spend a lot of time carefully looking at small and large items, and i would be in favor of breaking this up into pieces that are more manageable. i have read the several different times, and i am confused. i care -- dare to ask the question who truly understand all this? i will not do that. i hope there is more out -- and people get the opportunity to

chime in a bit. some of the items seem to be written by folks who do not live in the area or have not spent too much time but do not like the way that chinatown looks with vinyl awnings. that might be the case, but that is part of the character, whether you like it or not. all the different districts make the city unique. i am hoping, when we come back, there are more folks involved. frankly, most frankly -- importantly, that people understand this. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i want to thank ms. gish -- commissioner miguel for bringing up the thing that i forgot, about the elimination's. i can speak from personal experience, we have often times had illumination on photoelectric cells, and there's advantages. for example, security.

if you have a lighted area, you are less apt to have problems because anyone intent upon criminal activities, it is very visible to people in the area. of course, advertising is another. ultimately, this should be a decision made by the individual business owners and the city should not be making decisions as to how a business owner wishes to spend their investment of this double funds in running their business. if they want to eliminate it, it should be their decision to do it. without getting into the details, this is an important detail that we did that go into too much detail. restrictions in the van ness corridor. i think it has ramifications for the other areas too. where we are eliminating the minimum requirements for parking, but what are we replacing it with?

restrictions on maximums? >> the maximum for residential, i believe, -- the proposal is to change from one parking space to every four units. the idea is to create the maximum 150%. commissioner antonini: so you could go from on to two by cu? >> you would get rid of the minimum and then make it -- we have not done that calculation. commissioner antonini: it sounds too restrictive, going too far in a certain direction. i can see eliminating required minimums is a step in the right direction, but every product is different and there are projects that definitely need one to one

parking. trying to restrict them to less or to make it cumbersome, administratively, to go through a long cu process, to just get this additional parking that they may need for the development, i think, is moving in the wrong direction. i would look at that seriously. this is an area that has potential for a lot of development of housing in the future. there will be different kinds of developments, some which will not want parking, others that will require one to one parking. >> if i could address some things that have come up. commissioner miguel, you mentioned 10 feet above the roof line of the gas station. that applies only for signs that are attached to the building. it does not impact freestanding signs. the reason for the illumination ban, it is recognizing the

change of van ness to more residential characteristics. the idea was to not have flashing where illumination at night. commissioner diretion have consensus and there are others that will be at the hearing today where additional work needs to be done. i am personally interested -- it became clear with mr. cohen's presentation -- presentation of affordable housing with the mayor's office of economic development, it becomes important because if there are new initiatives to discuss this difficult issue, i would like supervisor chiu's with those pa, everything is coming together and we do not find ourselves being confronted with palmer. i would like to see a matured,

multi-level discussion to help develop legislation by which we could act and have guidance in the long run. i want to comment on an issue that had my attention, the issue of sidewalk elevators. a large part of downtown san francisco, particularly, in the financial district, because of the way buildings operate, they have, in basements where loading is operated from a sidewalk which might be a few buildings away. we see that at the bottom of montgomery, bush street. you see that in other cities like new york and chicago. i think these buildings, unless we create more problems with existing loading docks, and these things are part of the older buildings infrastructure. mostly, these elevators are run

in off hours, at 5:00 in the morning. i happen to walk by them late at night or early in the morning. they rarely interfere with sidewalk traffic. sometimes they do, but it is maybe one day out of the year. i would look at that carefully. i will look at how the builders operate and what they need to function. there is also utility access for pg&e, and some of them still have steam provisions underneath. this is a technical issue. i do not think we should use that to prove the streetscape. i am glad you clarified about the sighted. gas station signs. i understand new gas stations, of which i have not seen for many years -- is the opposite. we still need to know where

there are, because they are hard to find. as much as i do not like freestanding signs, as much as i totally disagree with them being as tall as they are, it is the only way to find them. otherwise, you will miss them and as a greenhouse gases by circling the block because you missed the driveway, when they were wedged in between residential. whether this is anecdotal stuff, the intent is good, but the reality of the city is different, particularly coming in the area where this code changes are supposed to apply. regarding van ness corridor, night lighting, i am all for using reasonable energy code. but general street lighting on van ness is designed at the level, which if you would turn out current illumination of commercial, it would be below standard. the street is so dark that even

the new residential buildings, because the way the lobbies are designed, do not give you the comfortable lighting in barn and in the middle of the night as you have in other parts of the city. there is a standard for illumination, and i would hope that you check that what you are pursuing this code. in the long run, it might work. at the moment, it does not. i am just throwing that out because there are some reality to these changes. generally, i am happy to see the thoroughness and the challenges this particular dialogue is causing, so i hope that you will come back and everything is resolved. commissioner olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i do not get the connection between all the proposed changes, other than the happen to be together. we have nice words upfront about

how it will implement one kind of thing or another, but i still do not see how signs and affordable housing are on par, whether we should be considering all this together. i agree with commissioner fong. if there is a lot of to do about the signs, maybe the supervisor and staff ought to take it out. then move on with other sections. that said, i would also like to support commissioner moore and peter cohen with respect to the housing part. it seems if there is a coordinated effort to look at the entire affordable housing situation in the city, that there is going to be this process starting early next year, that perhaps, this ought to wait, or be folded into the process, instead of moving ahead separately with it. i do not know what the state level, if anything is happening

legislatively, to address the cases we have talked about, but that, too, might be a situation where if it can be fixed at the estate bubble, -- level -- i am not saying that we should not wait, but if there are efforts that can be made, we should be aware of that, too. perhaps there will be new things coming down the pipe that we will have to consider. since we are on basements, our office building has a base that extend underneath the sidewalk. we use it for storage and other things. there are cockroaches and other things down there. but it would be extremely difficult if we proposed anything that would trigger removing the basement to do so, because that is where our some pump is, where all the major

electrical panels are located. i do not even think -- not sure whether our foundation wall does not incorporate some structural strength that extends out to the sidewalk. i am sure all that would be taken into consideration. in any case, it would have to be a case by case situation. i would like to have staff and supervisors stand firm on surface parking lots. support the direction you are going there. i did have a question on a long- term parking rates. could you explain that more? long-term parking rates isn't in terms -- the addition to what? >> it was developed during the

downtown plan, to discourage people from driving downtown every day. it does not allow you to have a discount to purchase a monthly pass. you have to be charged the hourly rate. right now, we do not do a good job of enforcing it. that is current policy. the new one would allow an early bird special. a discount of $2.50 if you arrive before a certain time and leave after a certain time. in terms of expanding the waterfront committee, that is a great idea. commissioner sugaya: you are also suggesting that curb cuts should not come before this commission, but go to the

advisory committee? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: could you explain -- i do not the -- know the total powers of the committee. are they not just advisory -- i guess my question is, if it goes to the waterfront advisory committee, would jurisdiction do they have two or -- do they have to approve or deny? commissioner moore: it is advisory. for those that do not know, i sit on the waterfront port advisory. curbcuts are operational. they are not used or interpreted in a way that we see a new residential building that needs a wider curbcut then what the code allows. we are operating with a fixed

amount, but sometimes, due to changes in buildings, that needs to move. however, it comes to a discussion because there is still access that is required. can it be moved a little bit or altogether? there is never really any new edition of curbcuts. i was in the jurisdiction of the approval of the design advisory. people on the advisory do discuss the necessity of curbcuts. there is a strong understanding of the waterfront plan objectives, the ideas of the embarcadero, the nature of the importance of bicycles. it is not about adding the curbcuts, but being the stewards of the idea. since she is on the enforcing end of things, she should speak

to it herself. commissioner sugaya: if it goes to the committee -- where does that go? >> diane with the port. commissioner, to explain how the issue gets addressed by the committee -- in the planning code now, it is the city's waterfront advisory plan committee. the recommendation that comes from the committee go to the port director and planning director. if those recommendations are not going to be accepted by the port, there is an appeals process, at its highest level, which have to go back to the port commission, planning commission. while we call that an advisory

committee, it actually has teeth. commissioner olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden i think my colleagues have covered a lot of the issues that this legislation covers. there are of great pieces here. i think a lot of the issues around f.a.r., bicycle parking, regular parking, affordable housing, everything dealing with the c-3 district is a lot of things that we grapple with on a regular basis with these large projects. i think this area is -- more work on this direction, supporting this, would be worthwhile. that is not to preclude conversation that we have had with the affordable housing community, looking at how this may complement the other thing that we could give out for incentives. obviously, even beyond those districts, we need to look at

some things if they make sense. a lot of the staff recommendation is related to amendments to parking, signage in the waterfront, i think make sense. i was confused that we put the parking rate structure in the code. it seems to me, bizarre. i understand this is the practice. it would seem to me it would the ball frequently enough that you would not want to put it in the code. i do not know if there is an easy way to write it so that it is not a fixed number, but percentages. i do not know. i have not looked at that closely enough. looking at the lccu, it sounds like the existing code makes lot more sense. based on the distance issues that people talked about, the

waterfront advisory committee seems like the suitable committee to look at those issues. i support those changes as well. do not know enough about wholesale establishments. i would imagine, in jackson square, there are a lot of those establishments. i need to understand exactly what kind of businesses that covers to understand whether or not that would even make sense, but i would support the department's recommendations in that phase. i want to thank the supervisors for continuing this. it is a large piece of legislation, and the next time we have a presentation -- i think you did a great job trying to bring out the new recommendations -- but going for each aspect -- we did not talk about awnings today, even though it has come up from members of the public. we did not talk as not talksignage, other than the

waterfront. maybe the supervisor wants to look at how we can better partition portions of this legislation that are related to reach out to workshops in the community. i think you will have to take each section apart, maybe have independent meetings. there are different parties. as you could hear, there are lots of people invested in different aspects of legislation, and not necessarily all of them. i think the best way to do it would be to take it apart and have workshops on specific areas that are related. i hope you get a chance to do that and reach out to all the stakeholders in those disparate areas. thank you for bringing this forward. it moves a long way in a lot of complicated code issues we have been grappling with. obviously, it takes time when you are trying to cover so much, to bring it all together. commissioner olague:

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i want to thank the public for their comments. while staff did a great job of the then apply the legislation and working with modifications to make it better legislation, the public brought up a few things that were not covered in the staff report. particularly, the issue that was alluded to by commissioner borden about this instance of trying to set up legislation that would try to keep private operators, parking op going to e their product. i understand there was an illusion that this was in the early legislation that is now in place, but i am wondering how dispensable this is. first of all, on whether it makes sense. some of these things, such as early bird, incurred people to come in earlier, which helps us from having a rush of traffic. i would hope that staff is able

to work with a presidentchi chi to eliminate or modify this provision to keep with what would be good public policy, but it does work with the existing plan, clarifies. thank you very much for what you have done and also looking into all these different areas of this very long and somewhat complicated legislation. commissioner olague: supervisor chiu's office. >> thank you, president. i will be brief. i want to thank the commission members, planning staff, members of the public for the incredibly robust discussion today, more than i expected, given how busy today is ahead of you. we appreciate the engagement on these wide range of issues. i wanted to take a moment to respond to the broadest issue,

or around the size of the legislation, inclusiveness of it. at the most basic level, it is all in the planning code. most of it is related to district 3. when i started working with the city attorney at the drafting stage, we were looking at furthering principles that are already in either the general plan for specific area plan that have come through this body. one broad point i want to make, you have already dealt with many, if not all, of the policy issues that we believe this legislation is designed to implement in recent years. if you have not dealt with them -- for example, the parking rate issue. those are issues that have been debated and discussed for a long time. that does not mean that we think we're at an and the point. we want to continue discussing

some of tho chinatown. the overall goal of the legislation was to clarify, simplify, and amendment planning code, as it applies, not only to district 3, but in ways that further underline principles such as affordable housing, alternative transportation, the livability of our community, in ways that we all agree on. on the average, to make clear for the record, we introduced this legislation in may. i have had a number of formal meetings in the summer. as recently as last friday, president chiu and i met with bcdc. we have also worked with stakeholders, and we hope those conversations continue, but we will formally set down peter cohen later in the year to

continue those discussions. we do not believe that is the end of stickle broader reach. we see this as the midpoint where we are. after we are past the commission level, we will have a robust conversation with supervisors at the land use committee and full board potentially. we will consider pulling out particular pieces of the legislation. i will report back specifically to the commission would make a comeback in february about those considerations. i could go through each issue, but that would not be the most peaceful way to spend your time. so again, thank you and the public, and we look forward to seeing you later today perhaps for the other items on the agenda. commissioner olague: i only have two questions. the technical committee advising on a inclusionary housing, who has been appointed to that, how representative his that of the diversity of the city?

the only issues that are outstanding to me have to do with process, and those are the ones raised by the chinatown community development committee. i know that the name was changed. as it relates to making sure those voices are respected, as it relates to the issues that have to do with the integrity of that neighborhood. commissioner fong already raised -- others have raised the issue when it comes to the affordable housing, f.a.r.'s, all of that, maybe it is ultimately beneficial. maybe a deep conversation needs to occur where we are fully vetted about those issues. i want to thank the supervisor's office for working with us and agreed to continue with this conversation. thank you.

>> if i could request a date, february 9? commissioner olague: i think that is the year earliest available date. do we need a motion for that? commissioner antonini: move to continue the item to february 9. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion to continue the items to february 9, -- [roll call] thank you. this item will be continued to february 9. the public hearing will remain open. commissioner olague: again, i want to reassure the public that we want to -- if we do calendar it as an action item, it is with the understanding that it can be continued further out, depending on briard with the discussion.

again, thanks to everyone for their input. >> commissioners, with the and turning of this meeting, your next meeting does not begin until 1:00 p.m. commissioner olague: the america's cup item -- this cannot be before 5:00. ok. meeting is adjourned.

>> i do not see her back but maybe you can go for with some more comments. commissioner moore: i wanted to comment generically on the issue of a liquor license. we have had quite a few projects where the issue of overconcentration of liquor licenses was