chairperson maxwell: welcome to land use. i am joined by david chiu, and eric mar will be joining us. i want to thank the clerk and the folks at channel 26 for bringing us live. >> please turn off any cellular phones or pagers. any documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. the mets will appear on october 2. chairperson maxwell: will you read items one, too, and three together? >> item 1, ordinance accepting public infrastructure improvements along fourth street, channel street, and

third street, including sidewalks. item two, public infrastructure improvements for mission bay south blocks 10 through 10 and a. item 3, at mission bay south storm water. pump # 6. >> all of these a been approved by the department of city planning, which has determined that the improvements put in place are in conformity with the city's general plan. the director of public works has issued a completion for each agency and has determined that the construction was done in accordance with mission bay south. all three items met those criteria, but let us be more specific about the locations.

first, you have some improvements that are called third street accelerated infrastructure improvements. these involve the construction and ultimately the acceptance of the public right of way from curb to curb along third street, port st., and portions of the channel. -- third street, fourth street, and portions of the channel. chairperson maxwell: did that have to do with the bridge? >> nothing to do with the bridge. and you for the question. here is another shot. it is accelerated in order to conform with the third street light rail project. that is fourth channel and third. the second one are improvements that are associated with blocks

10 and 10a, also mission bay south, in conformity with the general plan. you will see them highlighted in the darkened area. here along terry francois boulevard and adjoining streets. i will show you an image of those. so it is the area curb to curb, including sidewalks, roadways, st. my. -- roadway, streetway. the third of the items is the acceptance of storm water pump station 6, which is in he cost - whic s egnerl vcnit of th area i just talked about. i will show you an image of the

pump station and infrastructure. that is one image of the pump station. last time i was here, you approve acceptance of park p18, a little green area here. you are not accepting the infrastructure associated with the building -- now accepting the infrastructure associated with the building, the storm water pump, and the building below it. chairperson maxwell: that is part of the storm water conservation, that little green part? >> i am not sure whether that is part of the system. >> it is. >> thank you for the clarification. that was dawn miller, one of our consultants. the building was reviewed by the arts commission and will be maintained by the redevelopment agency, but operated by the public utilities commission.

do you e ay qestios? ähairpers maxwll: colleaues? supervior mar: i am looki at it ook ie is above and under bayfront park. that is the location? >> it is in the vicinity. it is adjacent to bayfront park. supervisor mar: thank you. chairperson maxwell: i think that is it, thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment? simenon, public comment is close. without objection, we will move items one, too, and three. >> item 4, amending the planning and administrative code amending inclusionary housing program.

chairperson maxwell: we heard this item last week and had some amendments and it had to sit for a while. i i think we might have more. >> we did make amendments which i described last week, which are set for a week. since then, we have met with chairperson maxwell to discuss one of the components would like to have removed. i have copies for you. i will let chandra egan go through the details. it has to do with for 15.8, and what to do with units that cannot resell. -- with 415.8, and what to do with units that can resell. -- cannot resell. chairperson maxwell: we had a number of things in the tool chest. talking to them, they had concerns about it and thought it

may need a little more work. >> i am from the mayor's office of housing. we did review a number of tools that we have proposed for assisting below market rate homeowners when they are having a difficult time reselling their unit. we agree with supervisor maxwell that a number of our suggestions are helpful and help to maintain the long-term affordability of our units, including increasing the household size of the house multiplying and potentially waving the asset -- waiving the asset test. this allows the next qualifying household to go above the next established income maximum for that unit. we have removed that. we have made an amendment to sections 415.8, removing both

no. 2, which states that a unit that is unable to sell may be sold to a higher-income household, and we also removed a number three. that was a provision dealing with units that are naturally affordable, because it was promised primarily on our allowance to increase the income level for the next house will. in addition to that change, i would like to mention one other substantial change. it is in the findings. page 36 of the ordinance in the findings. we just clarified the rent burden, the current housing cost burden of rental and ownership households in san francisco. those numbers were incorrect. they now read that rental households -- of those, 34% are cost burden, housing cost burdens, and 38% of ownership households in san francisco. chairperson maxwell: what does

that mean? >> it means in the case of rentals that they are paying more than 30% of their income on housing and in the case of ownership are paying more than 35% of their income on housing. chairperson maxwell: any further questions or comments on this item? why don't we open this up to public comment. >> good afternoon. i am a single working mother and educator. there are mothers like me all over san francisco. we work hard at our jobs to. we feed, clothe, and nurture our children so they will become self-sufficient citizens. we serve our children schools and participate in san francisco communities. we do all of this on one income. month after month, we pay the rent to the landlord. year after year, the rent goes

up while our income stay the same. typically, half of our income goes to rented housing. i pay $4,000 -- i take home $4,000 a month. my rent is $2,700. this is part of why one out of five single working mothers and their children live below the poverty line. please, we need secure and predictable housing. we cannot keep moving our kids around the country are priced out. there are affordable housing units that offer economic security to us, and they are sitting empty. 48, to be exact. 15 out of the 65 bmr units on the market in 2010 have been sold. seven are sitting empty. we urge you to support single working mothers. by allowing a one-time waiver, you will match the moh waiver to

the reality of our lives. you will allow us to get out from under the cycle of renting, invest in our children's futures, use land wisely, and stimulate the economy. it is a win-win for san francisco. thank you very much for your time and consideration. chairperson maxwell: think you very much. public comment is closed. colleagues, without objections? supervisor chiu: do i'll understand the need to make some amendments? chairperson maxwell: we did not do the new amendments. on the new amendments, without objection. as amended, without objection. supervisor chiu: i want to thank the planning department and staff for the board you have done on this. it has been a long road. think you for working with us and others to make sure we

maximize affordable housing for san franciscans. chairperson maxwell: thank you all so much. madame clerk, will you read the next item, please? and just let me say beforewe go forward that item six will be continued until november 15. if there is anyone for that item, it will be continued until november 15. however, if you are not able to attend next week you can have public comment today, and you can also have public comment next week. i wanted you to know that in case you're sitting there. thank you. >> item 5, ordinance amending the planning code to require a new memberships to certified card a share organizations to residents of certain new development projects and to promote car-care services as a

component of transportation management programs. chairperson maxwell: this is your item. supervisor chiu: thank you for consideration of this item. i am excited about this legislation that the planning staff has been working on for many months. it dovetails with my own thinking about car sharing in our city. we all know that our city is one of the densest cities west of the mississippi. during the day, will swell to over 1 million people on a seven by 7 mile area. we have enormous congestion on our streets. if we are going to continue to grow, we have to reduce congestion. i think it is a no-brainer to expand car sharing. as a city, we have already been a leader in car sharing. every shared car on the street takes away anywhere from 10 to 15 private cars off the road. it decreases our vehicle miles,

are vehicle emissions. i should let folks know that i am a member of city car share. that experience for me has made it much easier to live in our city without a car. i and thousands of other members of either as a car or city car share -- of zip car or city car share have not had to worry about parking, repairs, car theft, accidents. it has been a wind-win for everyone involved. a month to think the planning staff. we have ms. rodgers here to explain what the legislation does. my office has been working with the city administrator's office in hopefully rolling out the first examples of on-street car sharon. it exists in our parking garages and new developments, but we want to start to provide options for car sharing on our city streets, particularly in neighborhoods that do not have much in the way of new development or parking garages.

o my neighborhood, russian hill, it is a real issue. we are looking forward to rolling that out in the coming months. i would like to invite ms. rodgers to talk about this legislation. chairperson maxwell: when you say street, do you mean there would be stalled set aside for car share dax supervisor ch? supervisor chiu: that is right. right now it is available in garages or parking lots, but not on the typical residential street. chairperson maxwell: i want to add that just because you car share does not mean that if you park your car in the wrong place it will not get a ticket. supervisor chiu: that is exactly right, but car sharing allows you -- there are designated parking spots for those cars. if you take a car out and move it back to that spot, you do not have to worry about the car being towed or ticketed or otherwise running into problems.

chairperson maxwell: thank you. >> amy rogers, planning department staff. i want to thank president chiu for sponsoring this important legislation. there are many benefits to the city and people of san francisco in car sharing. this is an effort that was initiated about a year ago. the department identified several barriers to successful implementation of car sharing in san francisco. we launched a three-pronged approach to revamp. the first was a zoning administrator bulletin. the second was adoption of the commission policy. theyannounced their policy preference on a number of issues, including on-street parking. the commission was wildly in support of doing further research are making that available so that car share would be reliable across the city. the third is the draft ordinances before you today.

let us talk about the drft ordinance. this would codify three of the four changes we initially launched in the zoning administrator bulletin, including establishing the car share permitted in the same manner as residential parking is permitted, including the voluntary conversion of residential parking to per-share spaces. it will expand the parking to all zoning districts. it will establish the car share spaces may satisfy or substitute for required residential parking. the commission felt it was good not only to codify those items, but to go beyond them. the commission requested that the board make two additional amendments that are before you. chairperson maxwell: did you say that the car share parking can substitute for residential parking? that means that if the development can have 45 -- if

five of those are car sharing, it is saying that is 45. >> yes. there is an ordinance that allows a building to rent spaces to people who do notlive in the building. if you are allowed to look read it to people outside the building, -- if you are allowed to rent it to people outside the building, the commission thought it was appropriate to open it to car share memberships that live in the neighborhood. the additional changes would be to include the promotion and encouragement of car share services as another option in the transportation management program offered in section 163 of the planning code. leslie, it amends the parking requirements to enable the commission to require car share memberships for future membership -- for future äresidns when ta is adde itinl use authorizto ti is foa ara whee w hav maxumap n h

ädevelopent is eekngmore äpakng than wuld be committed -- wo be ih. if tecmmissi fee cincd tere is a publi plcy ne togr ths äsace, t ca alsorequire embership and reduced vehicle ownership in the building. it is not required, but it is an optional tool for the commission. those are the five changes that are before you. chairperson maxwell: thank you. supervisor mar: thank you, ms. rogers, for the work on this. i am looking at the gis maps for city car share and zip car. i am looking at how far west it goes. at 20 fifth avenue, there might be one or three spaces -- at 25th avenue, there might be one or three spaces, but nothing in

richmond. how would this expand for people on the west side of town? >> there are two types of spaces, the type required by the planning commission, which is a majority of the spaces, and the vast majority, which are provided voluntarily in places where they see demand from membership. we have met with both zip car and city car share over the last year. they are committed to expanding. they need to expand in an incremental matter in -- manner. that is something they could answer better. the city cannot force them to relocate other than in conjunction with development proposals. supervisor mar: we have a letter from rick hutchinson, which is our nonprofit. what is their ownership?

>> that are a private company. i do not know much about it other than that they are private, for-profit. supervisor mar: are there other nonprofit or for-profit car share communities that may be coming in the future? >> we used to have a third organization, but there are currently only two. there are other organitions nationally. in san francisco, the other issue about the required spaces is that when the commission requires spaces that are provided in that area free of charge to a qualified car service agency. in order to get those free spaces that the commission is requiring, you need to prove to the city that your management practices reduce vehicle ownership, reduce trips generated, and meet the transportation goals we are seeking for the city. chairperson maxwell: any further

questions or comments? supervisor chiu: the only other quick, i would make is that if you look at the map of where these car sharing options exist, that are currently in the corridors we have in the city. my guess is that in your district and supervisor chu and supervisor elsbernd's district, there is less transit, and more people drive because it is further out. the more we can figure out in hong to assist par sharing organizations to give -- the more we can figure out to assist car sharing organizations, i think that is good. chairperson maxwell: when i think about my district, i think people need to do a better job -- we need to remember people

that car sharing exists. i think it has to be motivated by the number of people who want it. thank you. public comment? >> i am david glover. i recently signed up with zip car. i lived in patrol on the hill. i can walk to zip car station. if i could not walk, and i am not sure i would have signed up. i think it is based in boston. i was on the phone with them five times in my first three- hour rental. it occurs to me that if we do move forward with this we might encourage public companies to come into the area. with congestion pricing on the horizon, this might become more important as well.

chairperson maxwell: i think you are right. our district should really have been more available. supervisor chiu: you only have a couple. chairperson maxwell: patron hill, thank goodness. it lends itself to the kind of developments we are seeing, denser development. as we all reach out to try to do that, we will probably find ourselves, hopefully, having more zip cars in our district. we have close public comment. supervisor mar: could you add my name as a co-sponsor to this? i think it is great. chairperson maxwell: me too. without objection, we will move this forward. >> i need to read item six. ordnance amending the administrative code appeals process under the california

environmental quality act to clarify procedures to provide public notice. chairperson maxwell: this will be continued, but if you wish you may speak on this today and i also speak on in november 5. public comment on item 6? public comment on item 6? >> david glover again. to eliminate abuses of ceqa by demonstrators -- by developers or neighbors, we need a process that is transparent. it helps major environmental analysis and planning evaluate if on a project there is a balance between environmental protection and development. this legislation before us gives permission to the environmental review office to inform the public at various junctures on a

discretionary basis. i think we need more education, outreach, clarity, and transparency built into the process. for example, a developer could apply for a room addition. we do not want a neighbor to use a ceqa appeal in a petty fashion. we do not want a developer to get approval on a small component and use that approval to sell through much larger components that will have greater impact later arm. it does not seem to be any provision to make sure that mitigations are understandable and enforceable. there seem to be short cuts. effective legislation would set up a clear system that indicates what kind of projects and what kinds of project sites have a general basis for ceqa appeals and environmental impact reports. there could be education

workshops required for developers and the project -- and the public. it would require in that information the specifics on plans. instead, this legislation titans various windows to 14 days and 20 days, which does nothing to make this more understandable and does a lot to stop ceqa from working. it is about protecting the environment, not just developers versus communities. all should be considered. please reject this legislation. chairperson maxwell: these think if we have more process, maybe, and a process that said the developer is required to have community input and meetings, so that it is really something that is documented, and that they have to make sure that their project is out into the

community, that if we did that that maybe we had more up-front, that maybe that would help with your? >> i believe so. thr coud be oe of äcmmuniy clure aound o ce is used. it is a necessary tool. a thing developers would benefit from the necessary -- i thin the developers wou benefit from the unnecessa process. smaller developers do not have cue. i know developers who work with ceqa on a professional asis, in the presidio, who do not understa. ceqa is complicated. the owcase process i district 10 is a great example of community