committee. the recommendation that comes from the committee go to the port director and planning director. if those recommendations are not going to be accepted by the port, there is an appeals process, at its highest level, which have to go back to the port commission, planning commission. while we call that an advisory committee, it actually has teeth. commissioner olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden i think my colleagues have covered a lot of the issues that this legislation covers. there are of great pieces here. i think a lot of the issues around f.a.r., bicycle parking, regular parking, affordable housing, everything dealing with the c-3 district is a lot of

things that we grapple with on a regular basis with these large projects. i think this area is -- more work on this direction, supporting this, would be worthwhile. that is not to preclude conversation that we have had with the affordable housing community, looking at how this may complement the other thing that we could give out for incentives. obviously, even beyond those districts, we need to look at some things if they make sense. a lot of the staff recommendation is related to amendments to parking, signage in the waterfront, i think make sense. i was confused that we put the parking rate structure in the code. it seems to me, bizarre. i understand this is the practice. it would seem to me it would the

ball frequently enough that you would not want to put it in the code. i do not know if there is an easy way to write it so that it is not a fixed number, but percentages. i do not know. i have not looked at that closely enough. looking at the lccu, it sounds like the existing code makes lot more sense. based on the distance issues that people talked about, the waterfront advisory committee seems like the suitable committee to look at those issues. i support those changes as well. do not know enough about wholesale establishments. i would imagine, in jackson square, there are a lot of those establishments. i need to understand exactly what kind of businesses that covers to understand whether or not that would even make sense, but i would support the

department's recommendations in that phase. i want to thank the supervisors for continuing this. it is a large piece of legislation, and the next time we have a presentation -- i think you did a great job trying to bring out the new recommendations -- but going for each aspect -- we did not talk about awnings today, even though it has come up from members of the public. we did not talk as not talksignage, other than the waterfront. maybe the supervisor wants to look at how we can better partition portions of this legislation that are related to reach out to workshops in the community. i think you will have to take each section apart, maybe have independent meetings. there are different parties. as you could hear, there are lots of people invested in different aspects of legislation, and not necessarily

all of them. i think the best way to do it would be to take it apart and have workshops on specific areas that are related. i hope you get a chance to do that and reach out to all the stakeholders in those disparate areas. thank you for bringing this forward. it moves a long way in a lot of complicated code issues we have been grappling with. obviously, it takes time when you are trying to cover so much, to bring it all together. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i want to thank the public for their comments. while staff did a great job of the then apply the legislation and working with modifications to make it better legislation, the public brought up a few things that were not covered in the staff report. particularly, the issue that was alluded to by commissioner borden about this instance of trying to set up legislation

that would try to keep private operators, parking op going to e their product. i understand there was an illusion that this was in the early legislation that is now in place, but i am wondering how dispensable this is. first of all, on whether it makes sense. some of these things, such as early bird, incurred people to come in earlier, which helps us from having a rush of traffic. i would hope that staff is able to work with a presidentchi chi to eliminate or modify this provision to keep with what would be good public policy, but it does work with the existing plan, clarifies. thank you very much for what you have done and also looking into all these different areas of this very long and somewhat complicated legislation.

commissioner olague: supervisor chiu's office. >> thank you, president. i will be brief. i want to thank the commission members, planning staff, members of the public for the incredibly robust discussion today, more than i expected, given how busy today is ahead of you. we appreciate the engagement on these wide range of issues. i wanted to take a moment to respond to the broadest issue, or around the size of the legislation, inclusiveness of it. at the most basic level, it is all in the planning code. most of it is related to district 3. when i started working with the city attorney at the drafting stage, we were looking at furthering principles that are already in either the general plan for specific area plan that have come through this body.

one broad point i want to make, you have already dealt with many, if not all, of the policy issues that we believe this legislation is designed to implement in recent years. if you have not dealt with them -- for example, the parking rate issue. those are issues that have been debated and discussed for a long time. that does not mean that we think we're at an and the point. we want to continue discussing some of tho chinatown. the overall goal of the legislation was to clarify, simplify, and amendment planning code, as it applies, not only to district 3, but in ways that further underline principles such as affordable housing, alternative transportation, the livability of our community, in ways that we all agree on. on the average, to make clear for the record, we introduced this legislation in may.

i have had a number of formal meetings in the summer. as recently as last friday, president chiu and i met with bcdc. we have also worked with stakeholders, and we hope those conversations continue, but we will formally set down peter cohen later in the year to continue those discussions. we do not believe that is the end of stickle broader reach. we see this as the midpoint where we are. after we are past the commission level, we will have a robust conversation with supervisors at the land use committee and full board potentially. we will consider pulling out particular pieces of the legislation. i will report back specifically to the commission would make a comeback in february about those

considerations. i could go through each issue, but that would not be the most peaceful way to spend your time. so again, thank you and the public, and we look forward to seeing you later today perhaps for the other items on the agenda. commissioner olague: i only have two questions. the technical committee advising on a inclusionary housing, who has been appointed to that, how representative his that of the diversity of the city? the only issues that are outstanding to me have to do with process, and those are the ones raised by the chinatown community development committee. i know that the name was changed. as it relates to making sure those voices are respected, as it relates to the issues that have to do with the integrity of

that neighborhood. commissioner fong already raised -- others have raised the issue when it comes to the affordable housing, f.a.r.'s, all of that, maybe it is ultimately beneficial. maybe a deep conversation needs to occur where we are fully vetted about those issues. i want to thank the supervisor's office for working with us and agreed to continue with this conversation. thank you. >> if i could request a date, february 9? commissioner olague: i think that is the year earliest available date. do we need a motion for that? commissioner antonini: move to continue the item to february 9. >> thank you, commissioners.

on the motion to continue the items to february 9, -- [roll call] thank you. this item will be continued to february 9. the public hearing will remain open. commissioner olague: again, i want to reassure the public that we want to -- if we do calendar it as an action item, it is with the understanding that it can be continued further out, depending on briard with the discussion. again, thanks to everyone for their input. >> commissioners, with the and turning of this meeting, your next meeting does not begin until 1:00 p.m. commissioner olague: the america's cup item -- this cannot be before 5:00. ok. meeting is adjourned.

>> i came out to san francisco about seven years ago. i was trained as a carpenter. i got sick of the cold weather and the hot weather. i wanted to pursue art. i thought i really be here for about three years. here i am, 7 years later. ♪

i have problems sleepwalking at night. i wanted to create a show about sleep. a mostly due painting kind of story telling. these are isolated subject matters, smaller studies for the larger paintings. i fell in love with it and wanted to create more of them. it is all charcoal on mylar. it is plastic. i was experimenting and discovered the charcoal moves smoothly. it is like painting, building up layers of charcoal. it is very unforgiving. you have to be very precise with the mark-making. a mark dents the paper and

leaves the material embedded. you have to go slowly. the drawings are really fragile. one wipe and they are gone completely. it is kind of like they're locked inside. all of the animals i am showing are dead. i wanted them to be taking -- taken as though they are sleeping, eternal sleep. i like to exaggerate the features of the animals. it gives it more of a surreal element. it is a release subtle element. -- it is a really is subtle elements. the range of reactions people get is that normally they get

what i am trying to achieve, the sense of calmness, it's really gentle state of mind -- a really gentle state of mind, i guess. ♪ >> if i can remind everyone to turn off your cellular phones or any other devices. moore? sugaya? fung? antonini? olague? miguel? borden? here. we have the full commission. the first category is calendar items proposed for a continuance. case no. 2011 -- proposed for a

continuance until 2012. i am not aware of any other items on the calendar for a continuance. >> and is there any public comment? public comment is closed. >> i moved to continue items 1-a and 1-b. >> on the motion for a continuance of item 1-a and b to january 12, 2012 -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> >> thank you. the item has been continued until january 12. next is the consent calendar. items 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the consent calendar. these are considered to be

routine in would be acted upon with a roll-call vote. there would be no separate discussion unless a member of the public requests. the matter or matters would be removed from the consent calendar and considered at a separate hearing on this or future hearing, as a separate item. case 2011 -- for 44 garry boulevard, the conditional use authorization to combine the space with a massage establishment on the three-story commercial building. case 2011 -- the request for a conditional use authorization. to modify the conditions of approval placed on the small- service restaurant.

to add seating, including the outdoor seating within the 12th- street neighborhood commercial district. this is for 242 balboa st., the conditional use authorization, with 1800 square feet of floor area into a massage establishment. item five this case 2011, the conditional use authorization to convert 15,000 square feet for retail and office use on the ground floor of a three-story building. this is listed as a contributor to the south district. commissioners, following any public comment on these items, which would remove them from the

consent calendar, these items are in your hand for consideration. >> and is there any public comment on the consent calendar items? antonini? commissioner antonini: i would like to recuse myself because of ownership interest within 500 feet. >> i would request that we take this up -- >> i would like to approve items one-fourth -- q-four. >> on the motion to approve item two-four, as proposed on the consent calendar, antonini? fung? moore? sugaya?

olague? >> is there a motion for the recusal? >> on the motion to recuse m -- from participation in item number five, on that motion -- antonini? fung? moore? sugaya? olague? >> aye. >> antonini is recused. and is there a motion on item number 5? >> i moved to approve item #5. and i thank you, commissioners. on the motion to approve item #5 as it has been proposed? thank you, commissioners. the item has been approved as

proposed. you are now at the general public comment category. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public, that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. the agenda items may not be addressed through this -- with respect to this category, each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes. the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. bob iverson, followed by brad paul?

>> i would like to use -- >> if you could identify yourself, this will come up automatically. >> i am bob iverson. i have masters degrees in urban planning and architecture, and i cannot believe i have been practicing for 18 years already in architecture. my concern is with the presentation that has been brought forth on 8 washington. this is an attractive project but there are some issues that i feel are slipping by, and have not been noticed by many people. first off, i would like to compare the proposed plan against the existing plan. some of the imagery, and the square footage areas are very disconcerting. if you look at the existing

projects, there are a couple of small buildings -- covering this site, and basically the entire site is open except for the pavilion. if you go to their charts, this talks about 15 feet -- this is the other chart about open space. all they did was change the name from private, the public. to get these seductive numbers, using imagery to get seductive shots of this site. i would like to start first with -- the proposed verses the possible issues that have come up. i look at this upper condition all the time and i know that this is a corner of washington and embarcadero.

i went out with a tape measure, and i got 16 feet for the existing sidewalk. this -- i went up and down, and this is 17 feet. the gap building is the most narrow one, the 13 feet and most of this gap is over 15 feet, and all of these areas are more. here is the identical condition. this is 15 feet, and this is the imagery of what 15 feet will get you, against a very pedestrian version at hills plaza. this is not a highlight. and then, if you go to washington street, they have conditions -- with the existing building that is greater than

the existing building -- this is greater than anything except for on the far right. this is definitely an exaggeration of the dimensions. if you were going to look at -- moving over the fence from the drum walk -- we see something very seductive here. they are taking half of the tennis court and coopting all of the space around us, and calling this the north end park. if you were going to look at this, there are many -- >> thank you. >> i would like to speak to the individual today. i would like to show you to alternatives -- this was developed in 2007 by iverson.

and you can see -- what happened to this? you can see that this is actually a very attractive hotel over retail. if you put them side by side, the 2000 -- 2007 proposal, it is fascinating, what is the same and what is different. the ground floor is exactly the same, and it fascinates me that there is even an extension to the recreation center, with a curved roof. and what you can't see is the lightly-colored wall that is behind us. and let's go to washington street. this is a very playful frontage that is there, a little structure that you can see through on the left with a couple of tennis courts, and the next picture? what we remember from this study is we came up with -- the next

slide? this is exciting. you have seen this. the next slide? what we came up with is a very similar thing for this -- this was a transit bicycle recreation center. we also looked at all of this comprehensively. what we presented to you -- they agreed with us that this was a good way to go. we could not do that in this case because the owner of 80% of the land. this is golden gateway and this is important for a couple of reasons. they are converting hundreds of affordable, middle-class families rental housing units, and the executive suites. you can see that they are featured on there. in 1993 when they bought this

land through a loophole, they figured out a way to avoid recording the sale. each year, for three or four years they have less than 51% interest, so there was no sale or reappraisal. they were paying property taxes based on a different value. a whistle-blower gave information to the assessor, and said this was $75 billion less than they should have paid. do not give them an increase in the height that will add to the height of this project. it will take away the middle- class housing that we need in this city. thank you. linda chapman? >> linda chapman.

this weekend, i should have been communicating with people about a different project but was overcome by events on polk street. twice, recently, you have approved more alcohol licenses, one of them which stated that the termination time, and the other, you gave off -- with a free community support. you'll be having to live nations coming up. the sound that you heard from the tape that was heard -- at bar closing time. this is under the senior housing and rental housing that the manager came in to tell you about. these are the sounds that people will hear on top of the hill. after that, it will only be