>> we're having a report on this in june. and we can ask the staff to look into this. >> this is in article 4. >> and do we have any additional public comment? general public comment is closed. >> commissioners, moving on to the a regular calendar, this is case 2010. parking, south of market. >> good afternoon. there is an ordinance before you that was from supervisor daily and is now supported by supervisor chem. -- kim. this is to conform with contemporary policy. originally, this item was on the calendar, for february 10. the supervisor requested some

opportunities through outreach. this was originally before you on february 6. the supervisor indicated that she does not intend to amend the ordinance. i will introduce her aid, to describe their intentions. >> good afternoon. i am legislative aide for supervisor kim. this was originally introduced by supervisor daily and the office has taken this up. we have been working closely with the honor -- with the person running global cities, to establish the maximum parking limits in the south of the market to make this better with

the adjacent areas. it also required to non- residents with hotel marking in the south of market, adjacent to downtown, to have a structure to discourage long-term commuter parking. we have met with key stakeholders in mission bay, and has been brought to our attention, that this is undergoing a planning process. this includes blog 800701, and now we're asking to remove these numbers from this legislation. it is described in the planning staff report. another issue that has come to our attention, is the issue of participation in the

transportation management program. there is a concern that for some business in the market -- this may unintentionally burden small business. we will work with small business to address this, as we move forward with some of the suggested changes. we will go to larger venues, the move in the neighborhood serving retail. i wanted to bring this to your attention. i want to thank the city attorney who has the working on this, and the planning staff who have been working on this as well. we wanted to give you our thanks. >> rogers, planning department's staff. i want to go to the basis of the recommendation.

all the areas that were proposed for rezoning -- these are part of the current rezoning process. if this is in the task force area, and also the port of san francisco is working on a plan as well. all these areas are undergoing future changes, but we believe that the ordinance has ended and utilities, we support the supervisors modification to remove the mission bay zoning district because those processes have not yet begun. we do know that they have supported the ordinance. and we are also recommending approval. there are few modifications on

the table. there were at least six ordnances that would be amending the same parts of the planning code. we're going to draw this to the attention of the supervisors, so that we are not undoing some recently-adopted ordinances that you have also approved. >> we may have questions afterward. i will open this up for public comment. i do have a couple of speaker cards. >> good afternoon. i am the chair a commission basis an advisory committee. the blocks that are called mission bay -- they date back to an earlier plan that was deleted from the planning code.

this was the train station -- with the property that is currently a giant parking lot. we're undergoing a massive parking project, and the giants are a participant in this plan. the euro yard has been studied by the planning department and also redevelopment because this is connected to the trans bay terminal project. what happened was that the trains go underground and surface this is another debate that relates to high-speed rail, and this is a major failing. in the meantime, he will not be

parking on the railroad tracks. we thought this was inappropriate, to leave these blocks in, even though they are not within the current mission bay plant. we appreciate the staff support of this decision. thank you. >> i served on the task force for a couple of years and the transportation committee. this was endorsed by the western plan. we felt that this plan was a long way off. this is a project that will come forward. this is much more compatible with the ultimate goal. after the dust settled on

eastern neighborhood, we realized that there was one pocket to the south of market. in these adjacent areas -- in the waterfront and the mission bay redevelopment area, in all those areas, there are no minimum parking requirements. there is still one parking space for each dwelling in that. we will bring all those items into conformity with the surrounding notion. we have a few parcels left over at 10th and mission. there'll be no minimum parking requirements on the streets. the other piece of this -- extending the parking pricing. many of these areas have seen office grow. and there is a provision

downtown, we felt that, when parking is available for the commuters, we were going to have this in such a way -- this is parking for entertainment users, to minimize commuter parking. this is the kind of parting with the greatest impact. we will extend this into some of those areas. the fourth street corridor, and within walking distance of market street. areas around the fourth. this is some of the thinking beyond the mission bay control. there are some very old controls, written in the early '90s. superseded by the control with the areas that require less parking. the reason we want to take up

this section was that you get rid of a lot of planning code. we just replace this with four words. the other thing was, you continue to go ahead and do planning. the idea of no minimum margin requirements -- this seemed like a logical thing to do. thinking this out is no big deal. the goal is trying to take out the dead wood. we're happy to wait. >> and is there any additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> he eloquently described by sentiment, and we were supported by a very intelligent article, and i saw this in february 2011. it makes everything much easier

to understand. you do not really see the subtlety of the light orange and yellow. i am delighted to see this playing into the larger context, the larger majority of us support this with a great effort, in the eastern neighborhood. i moved to approve, but i would like to ask -- you have talked about a couple of areas that were overlooked. this is in the section for something which is for several thousand square feet. i did not know that you talked about this. is this something that you would suggest? >> the issues section 161.

this requires a lot of residential district uses in the south market district. this is optional. but the way that this works is that the zoning administrator may ask that those businesses participate in a parking management program. this would get people to work -- we have moved to this section. as cycling and handing out the transit pass and so forth. this has been moved to another section. this is very open-ended. the definition says that any retailers -- there is no size limit. several thousand square feet could be added to the transportation management, and this could be the owner of such. what if we limit the biggest and

thousand square feet. this is relatively arbitrary but this is a large venue. these are the sorts of places that transportation will impact. those were the amendments that we spoke about with a small business commission. and i have indicated that there would like to see the amendment made, if possible. >> i would like to ask -- if this was just an oversight in the final drafting. this makes them an addendum, clarification and what is addressed in this area is very sensitive. can you answer my question? >> this is a very recent addition, and i looked over the proposal. the idea of another option, for

certain parcels seems like a good idea. but were for to the acting director for the department policy on this. >> because this is new, i thought we would want more time to talk about this. we could be in conversation with him as this moves forward. >> what really want to see is the discussion today, and we're happy to work with the staff before this. we have more options >> we will leave this as the approval -- with the intent, this is something that could be adopted at the land use committee. >> this is not part of the motion? >> this is for the

recommendation that we would support this. this is after the staff, we would work on the details. >> we will add language to the existing motion, for the management. commissioner antonini: i am against this for the reason that this is currently written, with market octavia. the reason is because we are going from the requirement of one-one, with the residential units, to allowing up to .75 and 121, in some instances. this is by conditional use. this almost never happens.

when we have a project that may be deserving, we can get a conditional use. we are taking the big steps here. i agree that we should not require every single project to require one parking space for each residential unit. but people should have this, and they should be able to go higher. this is in keeping with my earlier remarks. you go through cities like seattle, san diego, and indianapolis, the downtown area is very calm because our problems and not have their roots in residential parking, but rather in the parking of people moving through san francisco, which often serves as a conduit for people doing business here. that is the real issue we have. what we're doing is restricting

the residential parking, oftentimes. but not addressing the real problems. as far as the business parking, you wanted a lower percentage. i would be fine with a similar kind of measure, where you allow business parking. you would allow this to be in an area that is appropriate for your needs. a lot of the staff, unfortunately, stands this. a couple of other things that were brought up, i like the concept of higher fees.

this is what we really need. we have the real transportation is dependable, and requires people to use this. on the commuter parking thing, i did not know about this. the parking management studies that were alluded to in the review, this is a wise thing. they can minimize the impact of the employees to try to figure out ways to carpal and use public transportation. this would be wiser and i will against this. this would not require it, for

the residential parking. >> commissioner? commissioner miguel: analogous to this, something recent came -- recently came to my attention, and most of you, there is a medical office building that is maintained opposite of the hospital. i am a member of kaiser. we use the garage, and when they build the building, they were spending a great deal of money to go down this level in order to provide their own services. there is a minimal rate for people going in and out.

you would normally go in and take your ticket, and there is a lobby when you leave. you can punch the ticket and you will leave. we have mount zion and a couple of other complexes there, this has totally inundated the garage. we have the parking ticket when you go in, you can get the stamp to prove that you were there. otherwise, there is a fine of $60 before you can get your car. but this is the only way to prevent others from getting out. the long-term parking in the situation of allowing large facilities not to have their own

parking when there is a need for them, the medical field where people are ill, older and coming in with children, having a more difficult time with public transportation. this has to be considered at the overall. this is not directly analogous to what we were talking about. in the future we have to think about things like this. >> i do have kaiser. if i gamble, it will be for two hours. i do have a question for mrs. rogers. this is the proposal for change. the supervisor has taken out of some of mission bay. i also see this as the district proposed to change this. my understanding is that much of this street was not particularly when it was

previously. this was not part of the eastern neighborhood. this is in the process of what is being decided upon. this seems a little bit premature for the parking facility. we have a lot of the other alphabet soup. this may still be in flux. >> much of the area along the corridor -- we are looking at rezoning for this area. the staff is working on this area and the consensus for the department's management as a whole, these qualities are consistent with the remainder of the markets, and would be appropriate in their place if an object was there in the interim. >> this would be the interim policy. >> this is with the

understanding that this may change as a result of later work. >> it would probably not be more liberalized. it is not impossible but it seems like this is premature. this may be a deterrent to the projects -- that will say to forget about this. >> i wanted to thank him and the staff of supervisor kim's office. we have had conversations over the years about how development should pay for itself. maybe we need to take more consideration and get more consideration, as to whether or not we're going to push on increasing certain types of development when the impact is not taken into consideration. i agree with him, and his comments about if this is higher, if there is higher

parking, maybe this should pay for itself. this should mitigate the impact of the increase, and the results of the project. this is something that is long overdue. i have been hearing about this forever. it would be interesting to talk to the supervisors, -- and joseph ready to have this conversation if anyone else is ready to have the conversation. >> i appreciate when you are summarizing, and i would like to add that if we want to move to a better functioning transportation network, we have to realize that what we have dedicated to the movement of the city, the harmonious mix of people walking in transit and cars, we have to stop burning

the candle at both ends. by further in heating the investment in transportation, as well as the verbal commitment, we are widening the corridors. the legislation speaks for itself and what we have to do. >> this is looking sh whatever, but still -- i ride the bus every day and it's very crowded at the peak hours and this is with buses that are -- within five minutes sometimes. so that we plan to have a conversation with the m.t.a. soon so i think there has to be

ways that we can look at this in a real way. if you don't mind. >> i think the m.t.a. have done nexus sides -- studies recently. you should look at a joint hearing with them or ask them to present on what they're working on because i hear a lot of conversation about greater impact and fees. but to commissioner miguel's point, the visits you take, the medical offices, are exactly the sorts of visits that you want to priorityitize and the market pricing piece of this is to get directly at this so in downtown, the 450 sutter medical building, you want to encourage people to be able to come and go to those appointments but you don't necessarily want people who work

there all day to drive. so that's why we're adding this provision and extending it into areas where you have the dense development, a lot of offices, medical offices and so on to address the exact question you raised. president olague: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: i think we're all saying the same thing, that we're in support of this particular legislation but we're tooking at a particular district to try to put a bandaid on things but this is a citywide problem and commissioner antonini spoke, if we're really going to address it, we need to look at the public transit situation. three forty of -- three quarterf the time i'm on the bus, it's packed, just overcrowded. i'm not sure how we approach that, if a larger discussion needs to be had related to parking transit, usage, parking fees, et cetera, but taking these things piece meal is

doing -- president olague: it seems to me it assess the joint hearing with the m.t.a. because that's really their jurisdiction. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i was on muni yesterday going downtown about 7:45 from westport on and i was lucky to get on the train and it went by a couple of places where there wasn't enough room for people to get in at stations further down. there are a lot of people who ride muni and what we need to do as other cities have, particularly denver, i mentioned earlier, lots of light rail going in all over denver and out to suburban areas and they have a metropolitan plan a little like b.a.r.t. but their citywide transportation is part of a region transportation system that might be something some day we may be able to do in the bay area and we're not duplicating each other as is often the case.

>> commissioners, protect me if i'm wrong. i heard the motion by commissioner moore but did not hear a second. >> that was me. secretary: on the motion for approval. commissioner moore: secretary avery, the city attorney is asking for your attention. >> thank you. president olague, kate stacy from the city attorney's office. i want to make sure i understood the motion to include this exploration of the proposal to extend the transit, the t.d.m. requirements so i've crafted some language and i'd like to read it into the record to make sure it captures the intent of the motion. in the last whereas clause in the commission's motion where it says whereas the commission has reviewed the proposed ordinance,