the zoning, should it be sound in -- or residential. the only would be ground for commercial and seven units upstairs. the challenges that if the possibilities are not that wide, if this is a form of the retail, is this pretty much ground floor commercial or residential, is that what is allowed here? spot zoning is when you how identify land, development. that is actually more spot zoning rather than whether this is sound. we have said we would rather do this and then say we want that a zoning.

we can turn around and understand what is the round. we might not like the project but it sounds like there is public notification for when it happens. they would be engage regardless of what happened. if there is anything out of the ordinary like formula retail, it would require conditional use. can you talk about what is the realm of what someone can do by changing the zoning? >> there is not a project before. >> it does allow for commercial uses on the ground floor. that does not mean that they have the ground floor commercial uses.

that does allow for units at the ground level and above. we would want some kind of commercial activity on the ground floor because this is characteristic of what a neighborhood commercial district does. the controls of the upper fillmore and the services on the ground floor, i believe there is legislation about of the area. >> for a project that would not require --, pretty much would be seven residential units or commercial?

>> that is correct. there is that a layer of the discretion of the department. whether this is public outrage, it would have to go through its own environmental documents. that would be treated as a separate application altogether. >> does this change the height? >> it would change the height. what is interesting in this project is that this is in the -- housing authority and this is the upper fillmore. this is not typical of the -- zoning district.

this is not as though you are transitioning to what is regulated in the district. >> this would involve a rezoning for height. >> for me, i feel pretty comfortable in this. it has to be 40 feet and can only be commercial or residential. it does not sound like there is anything that can be proposed as the current rezoning.

do we think that that is a right transition? i would say yes given that what you would put there would still have to come to this commission. this reminds me of what we heard this morning when we were discussing the parking lot where they put out of our rescue for the parking lot but have refused to talk to the neighborhood about what anyone puts there. the project sponsor has not come forward. there is obviously someone interested, a mother and son team but they will not talk to the neighborhood is my

understanding and show them what they propose to for the proposed rezoning. that goes against the grain for me. i understand that they could not actually deal with what they intended to build but that is no reason to hold back at this point lacking any other argument. i am having a hard time on this one. the redevelopment agency should sell the property. the property is not doing any good and they need the money. good argument. the neighborhood should be involved more than just the rezoning. i and stand that the notice will go out. i have yet to hear an argument as to why it has not happened.

>> i see something which i really feel requires that the neighbors come together and discuss this. there is the use of fillmore streets and beyond. when you start to imagine what kind of building you can build, you will be stuck with rear yard variance. i believe that that adds up to slightly more disclosure. i don't want to have to make extra exemptions, etc. if they do not understand the advantages and disadvantages.

i fully understand the housing authorities need to move this property. >> i agree with the commissioner on the approving rather than the project sponsor. all we are proving is a recommendation to the supervisors who will ultimately make the changes. >> that is correct. >> i would hope that there would be some kind of design review which would come back to us on

whatever ends up being built. although the chances are slim, it is possible that something could get a bill to that would be code compliant in giving the new zoning that we would not have any control over the design. i know that staff would have to review it. >> there is no requirement for a commission review unless there is a certain type of use that would require us to. that would be the case whether the project was here or not. you would not be reviewing a project. >> another thing is that there are only two choices given the district.

we are simply bringing it in line with what the district is there for. >> i would be supportive of approval to see what the other commissioners have to say. >> it is our responsibility to forward this to the board of supervisors. i am not waiting for them to figure out whether this is advisable or not. i believe that the department could do a quick model and some checks for rear yard and side yard etc. and give me a greater compliment than giving me the list of what is possible. i am not prepared to approve this. i am making a motion to deny. >> to continue? >> i misspoke, to continue.

>> ok. >> anyone who can quickly sketch of a building of that entity would be able to do that. >> or have the developer come forward. >> at least something has to be in front of us. i don't want to -- until we know that this is possible. >> it does not matter who the owner is now or later. this is whether the zoning makes sense or not. i think we should just vote on it today. >> i was going to say the same thing. the challenges that when you start looking at sketches or whatever, we are acting like we are approving the project today and we don't need to.

even with the sketches, and might or might not be the project that the developer arrives with. we don't know. there are lots of configurations and what we can conceive of is not what the project sponsor is coming up with. we could send a message back and say that we don't want a project with variances if we feel like it. it might make more sense to talk about what we expect in this resounding -- rezoning. i think that that would be a false sense of approval for a project that is not before us.

i want to stay out of that falls approval or giving someone a message that everything is ok. it it could be a different process. i think that we want to be careful on how we look at this and i think looking at this, do we want it to be -- >> five units. >> i think that the buildings would still not be a building we want with -- that is the thing -- >> with five units, this might be too much. >> i think it will be hard to put -- i think they cannot be within this unit. that is not for us to decide. >> the issue is that the project

sponsor did not meet with the neighbors. that seems to be the issue. in some ways, i would support a continuance if it was just encouraging the project sponsor to meet with -- and the other neighbors and that sort of thing. beyond that, i am not sure that i would be necessarily requesting any other specifics. the calendar is so crowded that i cannot even see where it can be sandwiched. >> if there was just a meeting to talk to each other and have a discussion. >> i am certain that the supervisors for this district will not have a vote at the board of supervisors meeting on

this legislation if the neighborhood is that satisfied. if this was the final stop, that is one thing. because we are looking at if this is the appropriate use for this side, i feel that we could send a strong message that we urge the supervisors to make sure that this happens and more transparency happens between the developer and the neighborhood. i don't think that for us that that is for us to decide. >> you cannot attach a condition to a resounding recommendation, you could request that the housing authority brings the project for an informational hearing. we can request that the hearings happen. my concern is that there is a timing problem. the next open hearing that you have is may 12th.

you would like there to be more communication and like their to be some level of review on what gets built. we can insure that those happen. >> for the project sponsor, whoever the person is, they don't want to have an unfriendly relationship with the community. this will not be advantageous to them. they need to be more transparent as this moves forward and this would be much more helpful. there has not been a concern raised by the zoning as much as about the outreach. >> we are recommending adoption to the board. >> we would like to have the

neighbors meet with the groups as part of your findings. >> we have a resolution on the floor. >> this is for a continuance and at the date is may 12th. i don't have a second. on the motion for a continuance of this item until may 12th the -- >> no. >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> no. >> yes.

>> i move to approved rezoning with the placement and our findings that the project sponsor meets with the neighborhood to make sure that there is multilingual opportunities available if necessary and that the meeting happens before a project moves forward and we do see any projects as informational items if this is not requiring notice. >> the meeting with the neighborhood groups -- >> we want them to understand. >> you can not specifically require this as a finding but you can make the request. >> the motion on the floor is

that the commission moves this forward to the board of supervisors and that as part of the request that the proposed project sponsor meets with the pacific heights neighborhood association prior to this project moving forward at that any project that is developed that does not require planning commission approval batted lease comes back for an informational hearing on that project. on the motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> the motion passes. thank you, commissioners. you are now in

>> the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you are on item number 11. it is an informational report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the planning department. i am here with my colleagues at the san francisco county transportation authority. together with a multitude of other agencies, we have been working to track the bill, which i will explain to you is a pretty landmark bill trying to reduce greenhouse gases from transportation cars, light trucks, and san francisco. we have been working with a multitude of other agencies to the sustainability, which will

also tell you a little bit more about that presentation. it is kind of acting with the regional entities and they have been doing a great job so far. >> the afternoon, commissioners. we are pleased to be here and we definitely wanted to acknowledge and thank the department and a bunch of other folks that we work with collaborative lee on leading coordination for the sustainable community strategy. in just a few moments, we will have a few slides. this legislation was passed in 2008 to implement another bill that said greenhouse gas

reduction targets for all of california. we're focused on the mobile sector that is the result of the transportation decisions that are made in each jurisdiction. >> can we have the overheads, please? >> this will be the legislation that we discussed in 2008. it requires us to create a new element. it is done every few years and is updated as well. the element is called a sustainable community strategy. what is a sustainable community strategy? it is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the bay area. the have adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15% by 2035.

they also aim to accommodate the region's population at all income levels, and requires coordination with the regional housing process. it is a process of the planning department he to do every eight years are so. in addition, it requires the transportation networks be consistent with the land use strategy. it is the regional transportation plan for the next 25 years for the region. it is quite a big deal because this is where the public investment resources can be tied it turns to devise some of the land use changes. the four stages of this integrated process is the planning that is happening now,

some detailed scenarios. they're going to be releasing some of the results of an initial vision scenario. it will allow the region and ourselves to weigh in on the if we had a certain vision, we will see how far it gets by placing development where we think we can mere transit. we did not assume a financial constraint. it does require us to consider restraint transportation as a piece of the plan. those types of planning will happen during early summer. it will lead us toward a preferred scenario. that will be followed by the environmental review of the whole thing and adoption in 2013. this whole process is being accelerated to meet the schedule of adoption by 2013.

we have been working very hard to keep track of it. the initial vision scenario, what is it. as you may know, there are 100 cities in the bay area. they have input on how much they plan to grow. we will talk a little bit about san francisco's input. we will distribute about 270,000 more households that have been identified as housing needs for the region. they are putting it where they think it is best placed. have they have assumed this and transportation investments. what will this division scenario show? how much trouble there is and how much miles are travel, how many tons of emissions are produced. other equity and performance

results will also be analyzed. we suspect the region will get some of the way toward our goal, but it will not be sufficient and we will need to make more specific investments have and strategies to reach the housing and emissions goals. we will also have to do more with less. the next step after the initial vision scenario requires us to use what is known as the financially constrained set of revenues. we do need to follow the region and's guidance on how much available revenue there is. we will need to prioritize investments in infrastructure within an investment unhearresos envelope. and there'll be the form of more concentrated or dispersed land- use patterns. we will also test alternative transportation strategies.

some of which might be more policy based. these are the types of strategic meet our goals cost effectively. those scenarios will be analyzed and the results will be shared with the region. we'll be collecting input from the public on those. he prefers scenario is expected to be identified by the end of this year. the preferred scenario will be a regional transportation plan, but i will speak to that in another slide. this speaks to how the agency is doing the court nation on behalf of san francisco. there is a lot of policy level coordination boards. we're trying to keep everyone apprised.

they are interested in trying to coordinate with us in sending a very strong and coordinated message that san francisco is trying to do our part to grow and a sustainable manner and that we need investment resources to bring the transportation infrastructure and service levels up to the necessary levels. the agencies involved are the whole range of agencies that are providing input into this process. as well as within the peninsula. as you could imagine, the transportation needs are both local and regional. in addition, in terms of public our reach, he there are a number of mechanisms and committees. there is a set that will be planned for march when the vision scenario was released.

andrea maintained online resources to provide information as well. my final slide before handing it over to syria to explain why this all matters, the metropolitan transportation commission doesn't have an update to the plan that i mentioned. it distributes about $200 billion of funding. that is about $6 billion in the last plan that is not quite keeping with our significance in the region in terms of how much trouble we accommodate, transit trips, he had a we are closer to 14. the funding formulas are based on population and outdated things like freewayan