piece of ridinghood -- and writing -- writing. and there is the scheduling and disappointment of missing the hearing. the certainty of the hearing happening on the day that this is planned for is more important than the length of time waiting for that hearing. and this happens before in opposition. it is important that those who make this effort will be able to appear. i say that you should have a certain time, for the different times in your calendar so that if you have not reached this by 7:00, you can say that you are

not expecting to finish the calendar. and this would be a very effective way of avoiding a lot of frustration. thank you very much for considering this. and if there is more public input -- i am certain that there are others with similar opinions that be more rigid that may be more interesting. >> and is there any additional public comment? i understand that at one time, the times were certain. this was indicated on the calendar and i do not know if this is true or untrue. the secretary would know for certain. >> the planning commission, in the 30 years i have been here,

we generally do not do this because the calendars are so long. and we have no idea how many people are going to come for any item. we do have a guide that the case will not be heard before 5:00 or 6:00, and we usually do this on a regular basis. this way, you will know that you did not have to come -- and the case will likely be heard at that time or -- we were careful not to make this time certain. because sometimes we will not get the other cases. >> i know that we have a heavy calendar, but we may want to look at this. >> this is the new time and we may want to consider all of this. we did not want to do this in the past. i think that this is all very

possible. >> i am looking at the same face that has been here since 1:30. and that can be very old. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: so. >> to wrap up, we will be listing these items on the calendar. these specific issues that you have raised today as items to be considered to change the rules. these have to be specifically listed at the actual items will be on the calendar. and this requires the 10-day notice. >> we will put this back on the calendar in a couple of weeks. and then we will do another. >> just be clear, this is february 17. >> this will be march 3.

>> we will put this back on the calendar. >> as the president mentioned, this was coming up for the special hearing, on treasure island. also, please be aware that you will have training for sequa in the morning and this is also something to consider. and with that, we will put this back on the calendar for march 3, for a public hearing on these items that you have brought up today. thank you. >> there is nothing to prevent the chair from having this item, for treasure island or something. >> part of the thought that -- this is the fit thursday, march 31. we could bring this back just to hear one item.

and this could be something else. >> i thank you. we will move forward on the calendar, to item no. 5 and any other conditions that are concerned. >> there is a phenomenon, if you have heard about this in california. these are times in january and february, and the california coastal commission and other agencies have invited the public for the first time to photograph and observe the high tides, to indicate where the bay area it would be moving to under the rising sea levels. and they are asking people to go to those places where the high tides can be seen, these

buildings, and photographed them. and there is a web site, in which these agencies are asking people to submit their photograph. this is basically sharing the experience for the awareness of the high tide, and what they will do to us as a waterfront city. this is nothing that is frightening, this is actually the invitation to observe this when nature is making this happen. i thought that this would be an interesting thing, and so, the next article that you have seen, on january 30, was something that concerns all of us. and there is a real sign that the foreclosure crisis is showing up in san francisco real estate. and this seems to cut across all the neighborhoods and income levels. i found this a little bit more

alarming because we do not go by the homes, but are facing foreclosure. these are not outlined any more. if you go to fresno, or even los angeles and into the suburbs, you can see this on every street. i have not noticed this and this article was a little bit, not so happy. >> commissioner? >> i have a couple of items, and they also have an origin in the press. many of you may have seen an article in the chronicle. the public safety building that will be retaining the existing fire station, there was a lot of mention about the design. i contacted john and we had a conversation. i thought that this may come before us because the other prize -- the other projects, we have always had authority over

these designs. and it turns out that because this is a public building as opposed to a commercial building, we do not. i spoke to an architect in consultation and without commenting on the building itself, i suggested that we may want ask for the hearing on this, because this is an iconic building. this building is the subject of a lot of news reports, and certainly, many of us remember the beautiful hall of justice that we used to have. and we remember the streets of san francisco, but not the present hall of justice. not that this is going to be a hall of justice. but i believe that the public would be happy if there was some kind of hearing.

we may have a line of visibility. i would mention that we should consider this for the future. and we will see what we can do. the other items coming today, this was a good article talking about the family going to this process. and we have all been down this road. and when we are seeing with the expenses that is involved in these, mentioning them in the conversation and the process of some revision, to try to make this more fair and more expedient, whenever possible. what he was not aware of, this is the $3,600 that is the mandatory fee, for these unit mergers. the one thing that i would ask the staff, is if this is applied when this is considered

administratively? this is mandatory but the staff can sometimes make these decisions to allow this, based on this criteria. i was not ever clear about if the party that is doing this merger will have to pay the fee, if this is handled with the administrator or the actual hearing. this may be something that we are supposed to look at . there may be an incentive for the people to accommodate their needs. >> and i will check into this. i do not know that we could handle this, administratively. >> they are all considered it this way and they all have to pay the fee. but if they satisfy, four of the five criteria of the staff, they have the ability to allow this merger without this coming before the planning commission. it seems that this is a large

amount for something that is handled administratively. finally, there were a couple of articles in the deal with parking, another interesting subject in san francisco. this will deal with the neighborhood parking pass, which deals with whether they should be allowed to purchase these if they are going into the neighborhoods, and the other was about residents living in areas with no neighborhood barking, spending most of their act of time going out to move the cars around, putting more money in the meters. i think that this is reflective of the fact that we have a city without enough parking, and we have a 19th and 20th century city, where there is a shortage of parking, and i do not think that the cars will go away. they may convert into electra cars, and they may be converted to other types of cars, but this

is going to be a reality for the foreseeable future. and one thing that we may want to consider, looking at all of this, and perhaps figuring out the different ways to establish the ways that people can park their cars in certain storage facilities, many people are more than happy to, if they have residential parking, to put the car on the street and just leave that there until street cleaning comes, because they do not use this during the week. there is certainly something in this discussion, to look at what is a reality, and to see how we can address this. this was quite interesting. >> i think it may be interesting to talk about the parking, and have a conversation about this. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: you can

always come out to my house because back when they tore this down, many years ago, i was passing by and i was late, coming home from a meeting. and there was some trouble -- rubble, with six pieces of granite from this rubble. the statute of limitations has gone on. [laughter] however, i do have to show, the director -- >> i thought that this was an excellent article. i thought that everyone had seen this. i have attended several meetings in the last week, and i was hoping to rebuild this

project, and we had an all-day meeting last saturday. this started at 10:00 and ended at 4:00. i have about 150 people there, and this was very well attended. this was excellent. and this is just an indication to me of a great out -- that is going into this particular project. i had a tour with the partners said residents -- parkmerd-- parkm-- park merced residents. there was a total overflow. this was double what this should have been able to handle. they were open, just to listen to this. this was very well protected. i was meeting with the project

manager, on this design for rebuilding the safeway. this is the third architect with this design and they actually are starting to get some volume with the general public out there. and yesterday, this was last night actually, there was a meeting regarding the eastern neighborhood transportation. this was 30 or 40 people in attendance, with the department's staff. this was the consultant, on that one. some of these things were accomplished but not all of them. >> commissioner fong? >> this is related to the

future agenda items. and there is the publication of your idea, we will be suggesting for the speakers or presenters that may be related in san francisco that may be affecting the work. we have a few minutes, with the timeline of the america's cup and with the necessity is going to be like from the planning commission and our department, so that we are all on the same page, to make certain that this is the best that we can do. in addition to this, i would like to suggest that someone from the san francisco travel association visitors bureau, with the renovation that is going on, the general move of hotels in this area, i think as

a commission we will be faced with some of the grand hotels and what they may be purchased for, and eventually. and i think this is something that we could all benefit from. we have a quick update from the same group with discussions about moscow in the east, and the square footage. and what the demands are going to be for the hotel business in san francisco. and maybe an update about where we are in the competitive sense in san diego. and we have the advantage and the disadvantage. the third item i would like to suggest is an update as well. this is related to parking and transit, overall. i think that we should understand the goals that we

have. >> this sounds great. commissioner? >> following up on some of the articles that are around, there is another on the completion of the palace of fine arts. this has been a longstanding project. this is not quite finished, but these ceremonies took place in the last couple of weeks. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would like to say -- is this the time to give us a rough idea of what happens as this comes to the department, such as the one that the commissioner was describing, with the new buildings and the new activities. the only thing that will remain under the redevelopment, when this is finished, this is the

reconfiguration to what this is like. everything else that you were mentioning, including the expansion, this would be a new issue and i am wondering about what you are taking from the city and the planning party. >> and as you know, the redevelopment plan expired last year and this is about what the zoning was before the redevelopment area was put in place. we should not be talking too much about that. newhall we can give you more information about this. da>> we can give you more information about this. we have been working with the

redevelopment agency for more on this. >> and as we know today, in sacramento there is a discussion about the exhilarating -- accelerated plans for the redevelopment, and this sounds a little bit different from what i thought that this was going to be like, when he would take these areas in the state of california, and i have attended a breakfast meeting for a comment on california and the development, and i assume that as you were sitting there, and we have the report on this, something was happening with the hope that you would keep us posted, in terms of how this is affecting us and the work that we do. h>> if we could move forward to

the director's report, and the historic preservation commission. >> i was going to tell you that there is a memo for the governor's proposal, and dan prepared this. this calls for us to eliminate these agencies by march 1. not only the redevelopment areas, and treasure island, although this is the redevelopment agency under state law. this would be affecting all of those large, redevelopment areas. if this was going to happen, we believe the transition would it's simply called for this in the budget. with respect to the department's work, it has potential effect of having those areas come under our jurisdiction and another

aspect is that we have about half a million dollars a year in work orders from the redevelopment agency in our budget every year. so that's another way it would effect or could effect the department. now, all this is unknown because there's no specifics yet. but the governor has made this proposal and essentially it would allow the tax increment funds in redevelopment areas to be collected into the general fund for both the city and the state as if they were if they were not in the redevelopment areas. and the other thing immaterialed to mention is a couple of dates related to the housing element. actually today, we are releasing the third draft of the housing element. you will all be receiving copies of that and in the next day or two. and we have a memo set out that explains the changes that we have made in the draft. there will be a second and what

i have been calling a conversation with the director on the housing element on the evening of february 16 at 6:00 p.m. at the department. we had a very productive discussion, i thought, about two months ago of that same nature and 20 to 25 people come to talk about it and we would like to repeat that with a new draft in place. we have tentatively scheduled the initiation hearing for the housing element on the morning, sorry, i thought i had it here. oh, the morning of february 24, would be -- wait a minute. that's not right either. yes, i'm sorry, the morning of 24th of february. and that would be informational hearing and initiation and then tentatively either march 24 or april 7 for action. we don't know which of those two dates at this point. so i wanted to give you those dates which are in the cover memo going out with the new draft so you'll have that in front of you in the next day or

two. and it is all in the advanced calendar, but to give folks a heads up t treasure island and housing elements will be heard within a week of each other so there will be a lot of reading to do. >> that is it for me unless you have any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anmarie rodgers here with an update and this week they heard an ordinance initiated by the commission and it was the upper market n.c.d. changes to the planning code. and they recommended approval of this on november 4 and it would insure that commercial and residential development in the area is consistent with the existing development pattern and provide release from the parking requirements and insure new development provides community benefits to offset the impact of

that development and because it did not include a long planning process like much of our work, we felt it was appropriate to apply the controls and providing some exemption from certain other impact fees or pre-existing projects that are able to make good on the permit application by securing that and we heard from gold's gym and the gold's gym owner made the argument this would be the only nonhistoric corner between vaness and castro. and this committee heard public community and one supervisor was recused due to the location of

his home near the site. and after that he returned to the meeting to allow the rezoning of 65 feet to work with this proposal and once it's introduced, we will bring it before you for full consideration. and also at and there use, there were 8 pieces of legislation concerning discuss the creation of the pilot project on rincon hill. commissioners, while you did not consider the specific ordinances, you did consider the enabling ordinances on legislation on july 22 of last year. at that time you heard the resolution for the area infrastructure finance district and would establish a committee to advice the city on policies and recommended the approval

with the understanding rincon hill would be the first pilot project and recommended that the city consider two additional considerations. first you asked the board to seek additional funding to add a second pilot project for the eastern neighborhoods abed and second that the city conduct additional studies on the general fund. since your action, the apif committee has been formed and see the development of drafting the policies that would governor the use of ifd's as well as the completion of a fiscal impact analysis studying the long-term effects of rincon hill pilot on the general fund and a net fiscal surplus at build out. staff has served on the apif committee to insure that your concerns were addressed. and they will consider the budget for approval before the full board. property owners in the rincon

will vote on the ifd on february 8 and the board has tentatively scheduled consideration of all the pieces of legislation at 3:00 p.m. at the committee as a wholen o february 8. this week the full board of supervisors heard an appeal for 1269 lombard street. we had a categorical exemption for this property and the property involves demolition of an existing single-family house and construction of two new single family residential buildings at the front and rear of the property. the department has determined that although the subject building is within an area potentially eligible for listing on the california register as an historic district, the building does not retain significant historic integrity to convey the association with the district. therefore, it does not contribute to the historic significance of the district and could not be considered a

historic resource. the new construction would be compatible with the larger and smaller districts and preserving the fuelling of the resources. the board listened to all parties and voted to uphold the department's legislation. an ordinance introduced by supervisor ferrell at prosidyo avenue and to amend the height map from 40 to 55 field fooet and reflect the boundaries of the special use district. that concludes my report. i don't know if there's any question. vice president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: what was the address again?