>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the co-chair for the san francisco land use committee. i sat in that meeting several times with the san francisco network and we had representatives from the planning department. unfortunately, my issues were not taken up in any depth or detail, so i cannot say i understand this fully. the concern i have -- [unintelligible] don't worry, this is only a change in process. that's pretty important. the concern is nonconforming

onto residential land going on without any kind of hearing which i guess is allowed presently. concern about notification or the fact that it may not have hearings in regards to this -- we never had an in-depth what is it? a report steady. that's why i'm leery about that area. i hope the department will be good enough to give us some kind of time in that regard. thank you. >> thank you. president miguel: is there additional public comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to thank the supervisor on the work they have done on this. others have spent a great deal of time on it -- we only got the last transmission. obviously last night. i was pleased in going over it to see the severance of basic policies come out of it. i described it as an omnibus type of legislation last time it was in front of us and difficult to get your head around. i appreciate the severance of a number of different and controversial issues from the basic legislation. i truly believe that is the proper way to do it and they

will receive their hearings in due time. as to the staff report and planning staff, i was also pleased to see because it falls right in line with what has happened and other legislation that has come from the board to the department and the commission that there is basic agreement. there are three or four items partially in agreement and everything else is in agreement and nothing was actually disputed that has not been severed. that pleases me and shows we are pretty much on the same path. i regret the timing on this. i have expressed that as i did at the beginning of the hearing today. there will, however, be continuous hearings that the

board itself for individuals. this is not legislation over which we have basic control. the planning commission only is an advisory board in effect to the board of supervisors. the majority of our advice has come through the previous areas. other than the direct severance, i don't think there has been much change from the advice we have had given the before. i'm willing to take a vote on it at this time. our time runs out tomorrow. with the thought that we can individually or even -- if it comes to us as an agenda item, still have time to work on individual things. obviously, we will want to weigh

in on those pieces of individual legislation that have presently been severed from us. i think it is important, if there is any way to continue this, given the fact we just received the modified version. it is very complicated and i will try to go into the many parts i have problems with. i'm glad to see there are some things being severed. most importantly, i think the parking situation. i remember in my early days on the commission in 2003 or 2004, long discussions about parking. i believe the commission passed -- it may have been three spots for every four units with the ability to go on. it went to supervisors and was modified and

even this supervisor who modified that -- i believe that is still what is in xl@ce. there is perhaps an allowance of parking if you have two bedrooms or a thousand square feet or more. that would eliminate that if i'm not reading this incorrectly. i think that is a huge change and possibly move in the wrong direction. my feeling is we need more units that are larger units that allow at least one parking place because many of our residents live a short time in san francisco and when they start to have families, they leave because, especially in an area like that, a lot of people would stay and we heard about where there is a high incidence the of people with families and because they have a new project is going to have larger units to

accommodate the desire for people to have larger spaces with adequate parking to serve families. i think a lot of the congestion we have is from people passing through, not the residents. if you go downtown and are able to stop people driving and ask them where they're from, i bet very few of them are from there. their people from other parts of the city or from out of san francisco trying to get into some part of san francisco. i think there is a difference between traffic problems and it coming from people passing through rather than people who live there. if someone has a parking space, they're not going to move their car. they will walk everywhere. that has to be looked at very carefully. the next issue is surface parking lots. there was a speaker who spoke to that and the way the

legislation would read, it has been changed where if the owner of a surface parking lots would have to go through the process every five years to continue the use. but then the question comes up, if there is not a higher and better use and they don't get it, what happens? it just sits vacant was no parking? it has to be something, one would hope. parking get displaced by higher and better uses. we see a lot of buildings that have replaced surface parking lots which nobody likes. i think we have to incentivize and for the people to eliminate parking or put a below grade rather than try to stop them from having it there are making it more difficult. then the whole thing about bulk and again, allowances that allow heightened the bulk and i think this is an effort to make it

possible to have affordable rental and come, because polymer requires some sort of element that has been given to the developer to allow this -- really, there is an appropriate height that should apply to an area that is there for reason. if you start making exceptions for affordable and end up with an overcrowded area and people will have cars anyway and it will be even more congested and if they don't, the way to do it is may be to try to incentivize by a giving fee forgiveness to builders for units, particularly for larger family size units. that's a good way to allow for this thing to happen. we talked a little bit about pricing facilities for parking structures.

long-term pricing -- i know there were concerns about this. i don't know if the legislation addresses it, but i think there is a language that talks about controls over whether the operators of parking facilities would be allowed to have early bird specials or all these other things. i think it's an area that needs careful attention. finally -- the emphasis has to be on a larger multi bedroom units. that's something we have to work on, just making a bunch of smaller units encourages the same thing we are seeing now. in the other problem, we have to look at the whole level of affordability and address the middle-income group everyone has always talked about. some of this is part of recent compromises being worked out in

other projects where we raise the ceiling for people to live there because their incomes exceed what we consider to be affordable but they cannot afford market rate and we have to look carefully. we want to convert under used commercial to housing. allowing it to be at, when unit is fine, but if it is more than one, it's an important oversight to make sure an area of group housing -- there is some public process and oversight. another thing that doesn't seem to be in here and i think we have to think about that is allowing some commercial parking to be part of projects to help offset the cost of the project. he might be able to build more

affordable housing if you offset the cost by including it within their excess space for commercial parking use. they have to park somewhere and i think that has been a successful formula. it was used on brand -- but has been used on soma grand and you can pull right in offload mission street. the grandfather in, i have a question on that, maybe mr. true or mr. starr can answer it. whether it has been approved by the commission or whether it's in the application process, where are we drawing the line on these things? >> the only project have heard approved are the ones that are submitted and under a view -- under review.

commissioner antonini: if you start a project and you are working under the presumption that you are under the parking you'll be able to have and the rules are going to be changed, that's not going to work. transfer of development rights is always a good idea. finally, as far as rezoning, i think you should take the lead from what everyone on those because they know better about what they're going to need in their areas. those are my main comments. i'm sure i could find more fiat time but those are the main things. >>commissioner moore: i would le

to talk about process. i feel this particular body [unintelligible] because there were many extended debates on why are we doing it this way. why are there 12 pounds in an 8 pound bag or whatever the expression is here. that would require the legislation to be taken into different chapters. this meeting started with the commission announcing it was considering this item. that was on public record because people who hear this and don't show up for a meeting today -- when we hear it for final approval or final

recommendation, -- perhaps there is complete agreement. [unintelligible] that means there was a feeling this commission was in agreement that what we had in agreement did not come early enough to be informed. they are one-liners of things to which i would like to hear more. i would like to hear the background of the discussion and agree with the decision making. this is what this body is for. this body is for the public debate, before a goes to the regulatory staff. land use is only a small part. it is not a hearing with the

body of people in it to give them the ability to approve for questionñr and speaking for myself, i am asking for a continuance. it doesn't have to be long, i have the updates of details different from what my colleague is asking and that i am prepared to move. i commend you for all of the work you have done and i think breaking it into different pieces is excellent. i feel that procedurally, we might have something the public is not very happy with. commissioner borden: i feel like this has come a long way since it was first introduced. we have identified areas that need continued outreach and in

general, what i have -- most have spoken to issues that will be taken up at the board of supervisors and the future. i don't have the issues my fellow commissioners have and i don't see why we can't move forward with this today. they have separated out the most controversial issues to deal with. i don't have a problem having another hearing in this form. i'm -- not to say it wouldn't accomplish anything, i'm just not sure it's what we're hoping to glean from this one and particular, given we have come to a place where they were previously and we have dealt with a lot of them.

that just my opinion. maybe someone could explain to me the exceptions in this legislation and you could perhaps talk about it -- maybe i missed something. >> thank you. i did look through this again to make sure i had the exceptions and i talked about the issues are earlier today. i believe this is a comprehensive list than there are situations where the exception is being permitted it. on the legislative digest, which i thought was the quickest way to scan it, on parking, there are exceptions where it could create a geologic hazards. it doesn't make any sense and

have to grant an exception. i a believe for each exception there is a criteria outlined in that code. >> there are exceptions that would be more -- >> permitting exceptions -- on historic buildings -- this did come up earlier -- there is a provision of the legislation that would permit exceptions from dwelling exposures converting to residential use and it is specifically delineated and does not include additions -- >> de are of a kind with other

exceptions so i'm happy to -- commissioner fong: they are not new exceptions? >> i would be happy to do a word search in the next few weeks to find all the times it is mentioned. but there is one removing the exception -- it is a very technical one. çthose are the ones that jump t as new and of legislation and they all make a lot of sense. >> i am the acting son administrator here.

>> [unintelligible] what is it different and is the standards -- there are different standards for conditional uses which are for the most part the desirability where the exceptions tend to have more specific enumerated findings required based on the type of exception. also of particular note is the exception process is appealable to the board of appeals for the conditional used process -- commissioner fong commissioner e things we struggle with is a very few things are a necessity. desire ability is a dubious distinction, depending on

perspective, point of view, and the stakeholder you are in the process. i think that's a direction we should look at where it makes sense. there is a lot of work that has happened at this point and i think our staff is recommending the best that the word. i know a lot more work will happen and it is really hard as much as the planning commission is the ideal place to opine on this issue, the hard work is not happening. everyone has three minutes to speak and there's not a back- and-forth conversation. the true work at this point still needs to happen not in a more formal form but a more informal meeting with groups

around the city that have a stake in this legislation more so than having in other people -- have another meeting here. we have to think about what we want to focus on for topics of conversation because i think that would be most constructive in bringing the legislation forward. if we don't have that, i don't know why we want to have another hearing in this body. commissioner fong: your comments lead right into my thoughts about that. what feels different -- realize this is not a neighborhood plan, but it doesn't feel like they're is a community consensus or knowledge about what is going on. i know there has been an outreach and there's a list of agencies and organizations that have written letters of support. but i'm not convinced the residents and merchants of the area really understand this let alone know about it.

typically with something like this, we have fans or supporters but i'm not sure that many people know about it. i am glad to see there is movement in both directions. something like elimination of the plastic awnings has been dropped. i am a little bit curious about the definition of scenic streets and what that really means. some of that points to your idea of seeing a one liner of what acetic street's mean and what is the definition. i'm sure we could spend a whole hour speaking about that. the surface parking lot -- i don't think anybody acknowledges their highest and best use, but we're going to need them.

are they grassy fields until some other idea comes along? i'm not sure. this process is different than others. maybe that's why i feel a little nervous about it to speak to this legislation. i'm probably going to ask to recused myself on the second item if we were to take action today. it speaks to the embarcadero and taylor street. to my knowledge, there is no embarcadero and taylor streets. it becomes jefferson street when it reaches taylor. i'm not quite sure. and not challenging that, but just buy what i am not reading here, that would have -- i would have to be recused.

>> [inaudible] >> i think little embarcadero -- i believe it is a former -- formally the embarcadero to where it becomes king street. it was not the intention to bring jefferson street in. that big triangle of parking -- that would be the embarcadero. commissioner antonini: i think we could check with the city attorney. we went through this thing and

if one single ownership -- even with a large area, i guess it is enough @u( into that issue. i would suggest the following. if you think it's appropriate, we have a continuance for three weeks or one month for that range. whenever you feel is enough time to get what i have in mind done. what we get is the parts he won approval from on that hearing a week have time so we can review what we are actually going to be voting on in two or three weeks. the deleted parts would come back at what ever time they will be taken up as separate legislation. am i right on this idea? >> i was just thinking about the comments -- lead to publish our

report so that we can advance, staff won't have time to add any commentary to that. commissioner antonini: at least we would have a clear indication of what's going to be before us. the deleted parts would not come back, but the parts that you want approval for in three weeks are what we would see in one month. >> i believe the letter was provided last night and it essentially lays out what we would be asking for approval on and as stated, the agreement -- we have the agreement with the vast majority of the staff's recommendations and have made agreements with other items we have heard. i would provide that to you in advance and i don't think we have any plans to schedule with

on monday and move it forward. there is no overall objection, and i have heard a number of different and helpful things from the commissioners today. we simply believe it makes sense to create a small further incentive to build on the surface lot and moving it from two years to five years provides more time for an economic cycle and time to make the effort to develop one of those lots and this is just an example -- if a property owner comes forward and a lot that is operating and a show they have something in planning or they have worked on it, it's hard to picture the planning commission not granting that. it is one issue --