commissioner lee's done an outstanding job there. if you don't have a replacement for him, is there any chance he could be continued temporarily in his position until you do have a replacement for him? thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. is there further general public comment? >> good afternoon. howard wong speaking for the board of san francisco tomorrow. we trust that a deliberate and expeditious process will craft amendments to arls 10 and 11 -- articles 10 and 11 to fulfill proposition j's establishment at the historic preservation commission. with 2,000 such commissions in the united states, many with decades of history, hopefully we can evaluate and adopt that best practices and lessons

learned. a strong historic preservation commission will maintain healthy balance in protecting san francisco's historic and cultural resources. a major economic resource that attracts 16 million visitors who spend $8 billion annualy. a strong historic preservation commission may well avoid the mistakes of the past, the loss of the fox movie palace, for instance, which would have been a key element of the maintaining the revitalization of the mid market area. the building on union square, one of the finest buildings i've seen in pictures, in vegas memories also, which had a very fine preservation option that could have included a department store while maintaining that fine building. the loss of the city of paris department store on union

scare, another fine component of that whole composition of the square. and the loss of an entire victorian neighborhood in the western edition and the loss of the cultural values of the many, many square acres, square miles of this city for really economic reasons and not for societal or cultural benefits. i know that working, having been on the heritage board and having had been on the review committee for many years, that preservation and development and economics are not at odds. that many developmenters who came before the issues committee were often very amazed that we could find solutions that actually benefited them but were also very beneficial to the preservation as well. with sustainability now becoming a very common

commissioner veronese: badge in planning and preservation -- verbiage in planning and preservation, the building is the one that exists. president miguel: thank you. >> i'm going to give some introducery remarks for my client. i've had a lively exchange with the department of d.b.i. around a issue that you don't even know about as commissioners. and that is the difficulty the public faces in getting copies that are real copies for plans by the planning department. it's different from the 311 notice plans. it's the real plans. and there has been a lot of frustration that has borne itself out in half a dozens of my cases where the other side will not give you a set of the plans so that you can do models, you can verify information, you can find out if there's a difference between what was given to d.b.i. and

the planning department. and i think we're in the resolution, i've been talking as well as to vivian day who is the head of d.b.i. there's a lot of confusion at a staff level on whether plans are sank sant and may not be copied. and every time you run up against this civilian -- civilians run up -- if i run up against it i can figure out how to get around it. but regular people that file for d.r.'s that don't have attorneys, that don't know how to plow through the bureaucracy have frustrating times. and there needs to be something in writing that says what the law is, plans just for those of you who aren't architects when a plan is issued, they're protected and they can't be copied. but in the review process, if they can't be copied you can't comment on it and it is not an adequate solution to tell a

person to have their architect come down there and sit in the department and they may not copy it but they may evaluate multipages that have lines awl and all of that. i'm hoping we're getting a resolution. but it's an issue that goes on behind the scenes and you don't see it. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional general public comment? if not, general public comment is closed. director. >> thank you. i just -- and i meant to say this earlier, the public comments reminded me that yesterday afternoon the commission president miguel asked me to bring back the comments of the historic preservation commission to this commission on the recent legislation before that legislation is submitted to the board. the h.b.c. is scheduled to take up that legislation for the second time next wednesday and they may or may not act at that point but we will wait until

those comments are available to have a hearing so there can be a discussion about that. if we are not able to schedule that in september, because september is becoming a pretty tough month on your calendar, there is a tenttive joint hearing between the two commissions on october 21 which we could use for that purpose as well. but i just wanted to confirm that we will not submit that legislation to the board of supervisors until you have had a chance in a public hearing to comment on and review the h. combrmplet's recommendations. president miguel: we'll try and bring it back here prior to the joint hearing. >> thank you. commissioners, if we could move forward on your calendar. to item number eight. case number 2009.0187-t. department sponsored planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

planning department staff. commissioners, this is an item that the department is proactively bringing before you. we had identified several issues around our car share controls that demanded clarifications. a small team has been working on this issue. joining me today at the hearing is sharon lye and kevin guy and i am extremely grateful to this team for lending their talents, their energy and their enthusiasm to this work. it's been very meaningful and helpful to me. my presentation today will cover the sequence that led us to today as well as a summary of the items that are before you for action. there's also an informational memo in your packet that i won't go over in detail but that we can discuss if you have any questions. first let's review the history. on april 8 of this year, the planning commission considered a draft policy that would update building controls related to car sharing. at that april hearing, you also reviewed the draft at that time, zoning administrator, that made clarifications to the

planning code. at that hearing the commission embraced the proposed policy changes and you asked that we go further. at that hearing you requested that additional changes be considered and legislative amendments to the planning code. on june 10 the commission approved the resolution that established new commission policy regarding car share and publicly announced at that time your intent to codify some of the zoning administrator bulletin changes through amendments to the planning code. at that hearing you did initiate five amendments to the planning code and you authorized the department to provide notice for today's hearing. now let's talk about some of the content of what has happened and what you will consider today. to review the policies that you adopted through resolution 18106, established that it was the policy of the commission to set replacement ratios that balance benefits of new projects with the replacement of existing car share spaces, to affirm the appropriateness

of existing stads -- standards but also enable the commission to slightly increase the car share requirements when you make certain findings. to also acknowledge the benefit of onstreet car share spaces and to request further exploration and analysis of onstreet car share parking by the city. in addition to making these policy statements that resolution also initiated amendments to the planning code would thank would codify three changes that you reviewed in the draft bulletin. number one, to establish the car share shall generally be permitted in the same manner as residential parking, including allowing the voluntary conversion of residential parking to car share. number two, expanding the commercial parking requirements to all zoning districts. and number three, establish that car share may satisfy or substitute for required parking but would not be counted against maximum parking.

resolution 18106 went beyond that. you also as a commission requested that the ordinance that is before you today make two more amendments. number one, amend the code to include the promotion and encouragement of car share services as another option for transportation management programs as offered in section 163. and two, to amend the parking requirement to enable the commission to require car share memberships be provided for future -- to residents of future projects when that project exceeds the permitted levels of parking. lastly, resolution 18106 also requested additional information be provided to you about three issues, car share monitoring, car share controls and the redevelopment agency and car share control of croles and affordable housing. in your packet today, the memo address these three issues. so today you will consider a

resolution to approve the draft ordinance and many of the planning code requirements for car share as discussed at your june 10 hearing. the draft ordinance has five changes. three from the bulletin that has now been adopted and two that are at your request. as described in your packet. the department recommends that you recommend approval of this ordinance to the board of supervisors so we can discuss the issue within and potentially codify it. and i'm happy to go through our specific recommendations in more detail, why we are recommending approval, if you wish, and if you're well acquainted with those recommendations we can move on to public comment. president miguel: thank you. i have one card on public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and supervisor lee. this is the last public comment from me you'll ever hear. it's another great moment.

i just wanted to comment on this policy. we're actually very supportive of car sharing as a demand management tool. if you look at section 150 of the code, that actually says why we have minimums and maximums for parking. it says the goal of the parking requirements in the planning code to have enough to satisfy demand but if you have too many that contributes to congestion. so the idea is there's a sweet spot in there where you can minimize congestion. as a transportation nerd i would say the worst vehicle trips are ones that occur during the peak period. these are the trips to and from work. the reason being that's when the roads are most crowded -- crowded. so we -- we think car share something a great tool to try and demand -- provide transportation choices but to manage transportation sensibly and especially to reduce those commute period trips. the other thing that section 150 says is, of course we're a transit-first city and all of the parking requirements we should do should be compatible with that.

that's our mode of choice and priorities for use of city streets. so to that end we actually support a lot of directions you're going in. there are some things we recommended. we actually had second thoughts about things we recommended and would ask you to consider things. one is that the car share membership not be included as a requirement if you exceed the maximum. the reason being we don't want you to see the maximum permitted. the best tool you have for managing congestion in this city is the maximums that are in the planning code. every time you exceed them you cause more congestion. car sharing won't mitigate. that the thing that will mitigate that are the things this commission's spoken to numerous times. it was in the c-3 legislation. there should be a fee on parking spaces in excess of the minimum and that should go towards the things that really do mitigate the effects of those additional trips. the cycling, transit and walking. those are the things that -- those are the modes that are

impacted by excess automobile trips, not car sharing. we say, you know, stop putting projects in excess of the minimum but then also the mitigation for that should be really bike, pedestrian and transit money and projects that protect road space for those modes. second recommendation is that both commercial and residential spaces should be allowed to be voluntarily converted. again, we're saying there's minimum parking requirements for commercial uses. what the effect of the proposed policy is, you're saying, no, that should be reserved for a drive-alone commuter when instead it could be used to house a car share car. we're saying no. actually the car share cars could be a really greated a junction for folks who don't want to drive to work. we're saying you should voluntarily allow people to convert their required commercial spaces to car share spaces if they want to. they don't have to, just like with residential. but we say, extend to commercial as well.

third, the car share spaces shouldn't count against maximums and so, again, the car sharing spaces should count against maximums. so, don't allow more spaces overall because there's car share spaces in it. no one's going to enforce this. so, just the maximum should be the maximum. lastly, any car-free project should never be required to provide offstreet car share spaces. so if a project is going completely car-free, don't require a few offstreet spaces because that will mean a curb cut, a droifment consider another mitigation. thank you. president miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: since we are dealing with two very large developments which we recently approved and one which we talked about today, i've been wondering and i have not consulted with anybody in particular, except bringing it

to the attention, can we extend the same legislation to apply to by a view hunters point and treasure island? prevailing transportation or transit-first policies should extend to these developments because they are so large. i'm wondering and perhaps somebody could give us an answer to that. quh >> based on our research prompted by the question at last hearing, it appears that with regard to bay view hunters point, the planning code requirements for car sharing would apply. so sort of the slate of things involved with today's hearing and any other action you might take to affect the code regarding car sharing would affect bay view hunters point as with treasure hiled is a separate -- as well.

treasure island is a separate authority. that development would not be subject to the requirements of the planning code. it look like the draft design for development document at this point does include car sharing requirements that are similar to the existing section 166 but not yet adopted. commissioner moore: i would like to just inject it as a policy idea, because if we're talking about the greenest san francisco neighborhood, we have not geten into parking -- gotten into parking. i think i would like that to be a very basic part of policy discussions. >> as a board member of the treasure island development authority, i'll take that recommendation back to the board and to the staff. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: i just had a question on one of the points that he brought up. i guess it's his second point which has to do with the convertability of commercial and residential because i believe if i'm interpreting the

legislation correctly, now you're allowed to convert voluntarily residential to car share. but you wouldn't be able to do that for commercial. and i'm just -- if he's correct in what he's saying. >> that is correct. we did talk about that a bit in house and amongst staff. the purpose of those space are not necessarily for employees but oftentimes for retail spaces, they're considered for the public to come to the business. so in those instances we thought they're not completely serving the same needs as car share. if you're coming to the business, you wouldn't want to return the car share at the business. but there is a logic to what he's saying for employee use of commercial spaces. at this time we are recommending that it be applied to residential. commissioner antonini: i think i can agree with that. it's a little more complicated with the commercial, as you point out. even though it's voluntary in most instances, it's fine the way it's written.

i certainly appreciate his point on that. the rest of it i think is very well done and i agree that with allowing it not to count against your maximum because, you know, it may be that we wouldn't have car share spaces because project sponsor would say, well, we're fine with the ones we have and they're in use. if question add a couple of car share spaces we'll do that -- if we can add a couple of car share spaces we'll do that. >> if there's a car-free building that they should not trigger the car share requirement, that's something that should -- should be considered probably by the commission. for the commercial requirements they get triggered based on the number of parking spaces that are provided. but for residential buildings, they are triggered based upon the number of units. so, the commission might want to consider, if a building is car-free but would otherwise trigger the car share requirement, you might not want to because it would result in another curb cut and parking

for a building that otherwise wouldn't have to have any. commissioner antonini: that's a requirement then, it's not voluntary, is a that what you're saying in those instances? however, car share is a neutral position between someone owning a car and someone using a car, sometimes. so someone might want to live in a 100% car-free building as long as there's the opportunity to have a car on the premises for their use once in a while. i mean, i think there's a case to be made for it as it's written. >> on that issue, there wouldn't be -- what am i asking? the project sponsor could voluntarily put the car share spaces in right? >> right. so if you had a -- >> it buent be a requirement. >> if you had a 51-uniting. would be a requirement that one space be provided for car share. that building were in some locations they might be going car-free and we would permit them to go car-free yet we

would still have a requirement that they provide a car share space which means they'll have to build a garage for that requirement. in instances like that, where the building is providing no other parking, we haven't had a formal staff recommendation but it might be something to consider. president miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i think it's a good idea. it might make sense. although you could say that they'd have to provide it offsite. if you're going to alou it to be residential streets, then we could actually ask for it to be offsite, not be on the property, right? i think that would make a lot more sense. nobody wants them to build a garage for a car share space but if there's a concern that there isn't readily accessible cars in the area, maybe we we would want to deal with it that way by saying that you don't have to provide it or the option was to provide it in the neighborhood, notting in. >> -- not within the building. something more attentive so you can deal with both. >> yes, they would be --

currently now you could allow the car share requirement by providing a car share space within a quarter -- quarter-mile radius. sometimes it may be difficult to procure that sight. commissioner borden: would it make sense for this legislation to say if it's a preference that we conet want to require car share but should the building want to have car share, then do it within a quarter-mile radius not with property? i'm not sure the best way we should write that in there. i think there are merits to having spaces available on the street but not for the purpose of creating them in the building. >> yes. you can certainly remove the requirement and encourage the provision of car share spaces somewhere in the vicinity. commissioner borden: i'd like to add that to this. also -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. i was just actually taking a very quick look at the code section that we're talking about. and actually i believe that if you look at -- look in the draft legislation, i'm actually

looking on page 20 at line 14, which in the code section is planning code section 166. this is a requirement for providing car share spaces in residential buildings. it reads in newly constructed buildings containing residential uses or existing buildings being converted to residential uses, if park something provided car share spaces shall be provided in the amount specified in table 166. so i think that the requirement that we're talking about is actually already in the code. car share spaces are only required if there's already parking required for the probably. parking rather included in the project. >> thank you very much. that was very helpful. i commissioner borden: not making it manneder to by -- mandatory but allowing car share make it's a -- makes a lot of sense. a lot of people downtown go to meetings from their office

downtown. the only reason they drive is because they have to go to a meeting somewhere else around the city or the bay area. >> if the commission desires, could you do the same approach that we did for residential parking, where you could allow it to satisfy the requirements or allow the voluntary conversion of commercial spaces to car share spaces. commissioner borden: i would think that nobody -- i would think that project sponsors who would do that, i wouldn't think it would be a problem for development community. i think it's really a good idea to encourage it. i know myself, when i have to work, quh i have a meeting downtown, i have to go someplace it's not convenient, i use car share and go from my office. the same thing with the idea of people shopping downtown and not wanting to take their cars and use car share to go drop things at home. that if that would oblige the other commissioners and we could add the language, i would move to aprove the legislation with additional language that commercial spaces could be -- that optionally they could provide car share for their commercial requirements.

commissioner antonini: second. i would agree, as long as this is voluntary. because the owner of the business would make that decision, if they had businesses where it was necessary to have these for their customers then i think they would not make that option. i think it is kind of self-regulating and it might satisfy some problems. >> a motion on the floor is for approval with the amendment that owners could add car share for commercial. on that motion, commissioner. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. >> i want to thank them for putting their work in this.

i appreciate that. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now at general -- at public comment on items that have been closed. and this would be the opportunity for the public to address you on an agenda item that has already been revealed in the public hearing in which members of the public were allowed to testify. the public hearing has been closed. each member of the public may address you in this category for up to three minutes. this category relates to items 10 and 11 on your calendar and after this category, when we reach items 10 and 11, the public hear something closed. so the opportunity to address you on those items would only be at this time. i have no speaker cards for this category. president miguel: is there any public comment under this item? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'll charles here representing myself today. since the late 1980's i've been involved with various seismic-related commissions or committees or c.a.c.'s or whatever we want to call them. this was -- [inaudible] and i have always had a general question festering in my mind that i don't thinks that been properly addressed and i'm concerned because it's possibly creating a risk for the city and the developers for maintaining a reasonable amount of certificate tude and what it is you're aproving here. and that is the question of liquefying the soils in the mission, howard, etc., south of market area. and i'm afraid that maybe we haven't gotten some good

technical advice in a large overarching or overview of the potential risks to the city and to the developers on having essentially quickstand located in that area that may liquefy an earthquake. i know there have been discussions on pile driving versus concrete-base development, but i do want to point out one thing and that is, a building that goes off the centerline of gravity by 1% is a building that blks a throw-away building -- building that blk becomes a throw-away building. some of the engineers have told me that the designs of these buildings with a central core and not an exterior steel core or steel casement would create a phenomenon where the building will shake like an s. it's analogous and it's been

published that if it shakes as if you've got a long metal ruler and shook it, you would see it. and this could in fact cause the deviation from 1% or greater off the centerline. for instance, transbay may in fact move 27 feet at the top which would be pretty vigorous and could knock the building out of alignment. the other problem is, we're not -- this is not a perfect science, engineering. it's an empirical science. so this i think that there is a group under way that -- community action plan for seismic safety, that's looking at this type of thing in detail. and there's other options available to government with extraordinary resources we have in the seismic area with organizations in the east bay that c