stakeholders with the neighborhood network and spur to the chinatown community development center, which we have had numerous conversations with, and others. and we know that those efforts will continue no matter what you all do today. i want to reiterate our commitment to that. the letter we sent over last nighti] reflects some of what we heard again from the various stakeholders and yourselves over the last few months. i do have copies if anyone in the audience would like to have copies. i will set them here for anyone who would like one. i did want to note that i distributed this letter and the attached table to everyone i have been in contact with on this ordinance.

i think the most significant part of the letter is this idea that whatever you all do today, we are committed to separating at this legislation into at least three ordinances, and would not be surprised if there were more than three ordinances. on two parts, the part related to components of the compromise, which will talk to specifically in a moment, and on the parking facility pricing part, 155g, we're committing to put those on aç slower track and not ask the land use committee to take action on them until at least made. that is a recognition in we have more conversations to have with people who care about affordable housing and development in the c3. and that there is a lot of discussion to be had around the discount parking part and the

parking rate, because iç think they're still questions about what is done currently, how it is and forced, and the role of the mta department in implementing that policy. if i couldfá jump to the chart that i distributed, and i can put it on the screen here. again, anyone who was watching and ifç you want to e-mail me, feel free. i would be happy to distribute this further. onq these first few items, they are items that have come up in our conversations with stakeholders and what we have heard from the commission. let me speak to the so-called big c3 compromise first.

i questions about what kind of compromise this is. is this a compromise or a certain amount of people are sitting around the table and you get this, you get that? that is not really the use of the term compromise. we're trying to find a path through the tension between what builders and developers want to do in the c23 -- commissioner moore: i cannot read the writing. it is too small and too gray. >> i can take that down if it is helpful. i have a significant number of copies that i can distribute. so this compromise is really about the tension between

wanting to encourage development in our defense downtown core and çthe policies laid out in the general plan and the downtown plan related to the density of development. and those tensions that always exists in any city, but especially in san francisco. that is why the elements of this plan designed the way they are, so that in some cases they incentivize development and in some cases a further in the çparking policies. we see that as a package, and we are committed to pulling out the pieces identified in two and three, control board density and the f.a.r. exclusion. it might make sense to pull out the whole thing and keep that as a package since the it is that way. for example, on the density control, there is an idea that, potentially, we can have a certain unit mix to make up for that. that is not in the legislation

now. that is not generally the policy. but that might make sense to deal with some concerns around the unit mix. on the f.a.r., we have heard concerns about -- and i think the commission has struggled with these over the years, with the way that ownership affordable units work and whether folks can afford hoa dues, çfor example, and how the things the work -- how those things work. there are some issues that i think are worth having a discussion about as part of that legislation, and we would not move it forward until may. the accessory uses issue, there has been concerned about excess reuse is, especially in pdr, whether the square footage that can get to an accessory should grow, and in conversations with stakeholders, we agreed to pull that piece out for pdr. on the waterfront sud daughter

is, for two and three, there was concern about the with the sub area plan for the any waterfront have different standards orç criteria in the sud's and that was there for a reason. on transferable development rights, an issue that commissioners have been working on for a long time, we will conduct additional analysis and a doctor stakeholders, particularly in the areas of the city must heavily impacted by development right now, particularly soma, and i am sure the president will talk to çsupervisor kim. i believe state -- planning staff has done a lot of work to have a clear explanation of what it means to open up the market for these. it is hard to know until you do it, and policy is always evolving. but it makes sense to keep

talking about that. finally, plastic awnings, we heard about that. so we have agreed to not prohibit those plastic awnings. that could be geographically limited to the folks we're most concerned about. as a general rule, we're ok with plastic awnings continuing to be allowed. i will not go through all the staff report recommendations and less it is the commissions preference. but if it is more than simply agreeing or if there's something else too bad, i will try to go quickly through those. i know i am a fast-talker despite my son was southern roots, actually. on the first issue, we do agree with that. it is an issue raised by rose and some folks at the neighborhood network. a staff recommendation that requires cu for more than one unit and excludes group housing from this conversion possibility. ñron page two, agree with number

two of the recent new recommendations. then going back to the recommendations from a december 15. on a number one, i did want to add oneç thing, we do agree wih the staff recommendation here. we have heard recently from some fisherman's wharf merchants who have concerns that relate to parking lots in the fisherman's wharf area. we believe the solution the staff recommended here will allow lots to continue in perpetuity, and they will not have to get a cu now. it will be assumed. only new lostts will require a cu. that understanding is there, and we would be open to have that trail if there is more time needed on the discussion. an issue that came up very

recently. agreed, agreed, agree on two, three, four. page three, we move into the piece is related to the waterfront design advisory committee and some of the concerns expressed by the port. we will continue to work with the port on this legislation. my understanding, and diane is here, is that the port supports that approach, as they do the approach on c2 parking on item one. sorry for not mentioning that before. page four, the port peace. number 7, that gets directly to what i was discussing earlier related to the parking rate structure for parking facilities that we will pursue separate legislation, including an amendment to the transportation code if appropriate. i have begun discussions with the mta on that.

number eight, this is one of the only ones where we are partially agreeing. we think that there is some interest and rationale for this. we did take it to the small business commissionu we will do additional outreach to leaders of that community who worked on the existing controls. i fully understand the planning codes re-evaluation is five years. çthat is one where we fully expect the commission to actç o recommend a staff modification, and we will continue to take that under advisement. going to page 5, the next partially agree, item 12. it is not clear to me, and ask what, if any,ç of the america's cup plans are decided, but given the staff mentioned this in the report, i wanted to say that we can explore possible exceptions.

there will be a lot ofç other hurdles despite -- besides this related to the waterfront plans. item 14, this gets back to one of the elements of the c3 compromise. this is one that we will make in two separate legislation. we will sever and created as separate legislation. item 16, we did hear from a number of project sponsors who are interested in a grandfather clause related to parking requirements and other parts of the legislation. i think it makes sense to follow the staff recommendation and based on conversations with the staff, we agreed to three years. i also heard from some other project sponsors who are interested in a grandfather that goes back a little bit earlier. i have not had an opportunity to discuss that with staff. i have seen a lot of discussions with the board of supervisors with a grandfather clauses were

there is ongoing discussions about just for the grandfathering begins. we're happy to continue some of those discussions. çi believe that is essentiallyt on the zoning map amendment. we do have the provision related to the waterfront sud those are our offices responses both to the planning staff recommendations, for what we have heard from the commission and the outreach to date. with regard to the timing and the legislation, we appreciate the time the commission staff. since we are at the point of the third hearing, we're starting to

move toward the legislative process, with informational hearings a first. it is at the commission's discretion as to how you would like to handle this item today. we look for to moving forward with the modifications we have agreed to and if the commission desires to continue hearing the item, that is within your purview and we would potentially go forward with the land use hearing. but depending on the timing, i am open to discussion on the timing issue. and any other discussion you would like to have. >> a good afternoon.

there are two items before you, i planning code text change and a corresponding zoning map amendment. both of these items have been presented to the commission twice before. they were introduced on may 3 of last year and there haveç beeno extensions. the deadline for the commission to hear this is tomorrow, so unless the deadline is extended, he can take it on to the land use committee without any further action by you. since the legislation and department recommendations have been presented to the commission, things have not significantly changed since the last hearing. i will focus on a broad overview of the legislation since the item was last presented. they propose to make changes based on current policies like

the city's transit first policy and encouraging affordable housing. the primary thrust is to rationalize some areas of the planning code, such as recognizing transit-rich areas, adjustingñr parking controls downtown so they are more in line withñr what is actually beg entitled through the process and making the controls consistent throughout the city. the proposed legislation seeks to encourage the preservation of historic resources by reducing procedural barriers to adaptive reuse and allowing more flexibility. by allowing limited commercial uses to be reinstated, the legislation seeks to encourage the retention and revitalization of small neighborhoods serving retail uses and residential areas. the legislation seeks to encourage more affordable housing and more specifically on site affordable housing. since this item was last

presented comedy department and supervisors office has held meetings twice -- you got a letter a couple of days ago on that, and san francisco heritage. we presented to the historic preservation commission for a second time in the recommended approval with staff's recommendations. w3overall, the department suppos the legislation and policies seeks to implement. however, there are some modifications we believe are needed. those are outlined in the case package and those were touched on inç the presentation. staff has included two new recommendations outlined and is included in your packet. their recommendation isç to approve this legislation with modifications. i will be here for questions. thank you. >> thank you. [reading names]

>> good afternoon, president and members of the commission. i'm with the board of san francisco planning and development staff. i'm happy to be here today to thank you and your staff particularly i would like to acknowledge tom for the work he has put in to this. we are in agreement with the assessment that -- with what was just presented to you. has been a very collaborative effort to work through the issues and we think we have a good path toward for resolving a number of the items that have been presented previously regarding how the court can work with the city to manage the waterfront design review process and apply that to keep

the waterfront special use districts intact as they are currently in the planning code, to recognize the ports land use burden act and fiduciary responsibilities under the burton act with respect with allowing the parking lots to continue in perpetuity. we appreciate that, knowing what the overall objectives of this legislation are. ot in terms of the scope of what you are trying to accomplish in the planning code. çthe proposals that have been included --ç we would like to stay in touch with that because as most of our projects are historic rehabilitation and adaptive reuse projects, that is an area we want to stay focused on as possible consideration in the future. in short, we really appreciate

your time and attention and i'm ready to move onto the next that. thank you very much. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. >>ç a good afternoon, commissioners. i am here today to speak again in favor of this ordinance. one of the goals of the ordinance was to look at the planning code as it was developed over the past decade added to the tool box and to say can we apply these tools to for their goals of the city's general plan and a bunch of neighborhoods in san francisco as well as furthering the goals of the plans. if you look at the maps of area plants, there are several area plans. the northeast plan and the downtown plan, etc.. we are not delivering on all of

the goals in those plans. could we, if we apply the new tools, further those goals and i think our conclusion is yes, this would be an increment of progress and we are glad staff agrees and we think what's in this ordinance will help advance the goal of those plans. there are issues like affordable housing and with a loss of redevelopment, which has been the mainstay of the affordable housing program. either 100% affordable projects for providing affordable rental and for sale units on site, we think there are good solutions year and we put that affordable rental option on site and put it back on the table in a way that was taken off the table. there has been a lot of outreach and communication from different stakeholders. i'm pleased to say there's a

big and diverse group of supporters. people who do not always agree on everything and people who i have been adversariwe have beene housing coalition and the trade council and the san francisco bicycle coalition and the mayor's office has indicated their support for the way it advances their goals and i think everyone was worried about with three development. we could advance a lot of those goals with the ordinance. san francisco architectural heritage has endorsed this ordinance. the small-business commission has endorsed provisions related to assign edge, related to small business, particularly the limited commercial use. i know there are a few projects waiting for this. they have been trapped, trying

to move into a former commercial space in the mission district. they have not been able to do because of the cabinet -- because of the provisions put into the neighborhood. çitç is going to be a full calendar year before all of the pieces are signed into law, but we appreciate your time and deliberations on this. we hope he will recommend today and we can go the next step, which is to start the hearings at land use committee and to start drawing up these and finalizing them. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to thank judson and his help in accommodating my misunderstandings, which i'm sure will alwaysç secure in the

future regarding legislation -- always occur in the future regarding legislation. i was getting really bleary eyed and now i understand most of what was in there. i also want to submit that e- mail's you should have received and my backup documentation. i would like to read into the record a record -- a letter dated february 9, 2012. planning commission -- the subject is -- the jordan park improvement association requested proposed resolution -- proposal was a bit -- reported -- propose legislation remove the lines on page 168 of the april 282011 ordinary -- confederation of the ordinance. this was not removed because of the implications to the residential district with nonconforming use and density

considerations. there will be an adverse impact on the small neighborhood of jordan part. thank you for your attention to this matter. thank you very much. çpresident miguel: [reading names] >> i'm be here on behalf of the housing coalition. last year, tom was generous enough to come before us twice to make a presentation on this. he deserves an awful lot of credit for the work he has put into it and he might never forgive me for saying that the reaction we had is this is a moderate idea. it moves land-use ford in a way the housing coalition supports. it is wonderful and increases density and reduces the influence of private automobile use. it has an awful lot to say in favor of it.

we understand it is moving quickly and there are changes that have been made. we think you should move it for and we are interested in that discussion of bonuses. we think it has all lot of promise. everyone said this is pretty good and it should move forward. a lot of credit to supervisor chiu on it. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have to say that tim is a tough act to follow, but i will try. we represent priority parking and priority parking operates various parking lot in the downtown area. we are glad to see the changes to the rate restrictions. we're glad to see those are being separated out and will be further that it with the mta and parking lot operatoregarding thd

operation of the parking lots, i have to reiterate priority parking and a parking association objects to the elimination of the longstanding provision under the code that allows for the continued operation of these parking lots. that was part of the grandfathering back in the 1980's. just a reminder these parking lots have been in legal operation for over 20 years. we think the changes proposed are positive, but we think it is a mistake to require ceasing operations -- the conditional use operation process can be quite cumbersome. president miguel: is there additional public comment? >> i just want to know the eastern neighborhood cac was not

commented on even though this will allow one of the projects would afford. i want to talk about procedural issues. one is the difference between exception in conditional uses. they have very different consequences. conditional uses, everyone knows with the standard is. it's in the planning code and is readily available. exceptions, not so much. i don't even think planning commission could define the standard for it. when you approve a project under a conditional use, it is very well known to the public, eight supervisors can modify condition at the board of supervisors on appeal. exceptions are basically dead when you act. there is a theoretical appeal -- you need 80%, you need four votes to do an appeal. i have never see the board of appeals overturned an exception and i have a contested one on

parking. i also questioned what the standard car in terms of permanence. eightcu -- ac cu çbecomes the planning code. my question is -- you have a one-week rule for staff reports. it is like pulling teeth to get it two weeks in advance because you are in a longer staff reports. you are going to have -- the public will have a staff report on an exception. on friday afternoon it is available and the public is able to get up to speed and question exceptions, you may modify it the following week, and if you don't, the staff report stands. permanently. for all intents and purposes. i think you need to be cautious about making things exceptions

rather than conditional uses. exceptions did not exist -- i was there when they were born. they were born in the downtown plan and adopted in one of the plans and -- it's now the fast route to an approval treated is negotiated between staff and a developer and the public is not involved. they are dead when you act. [tone] whenever you have legislation of this magnitude that does not have pulled out all the policy changes in it, right up front, rather than here is the technical stuff we're doing and technical, technical, technical, where are the policy changes? it is not there and should have been there and it's not there and shame on you and the staff for letting it go this far without it. thank you very much. [tone]