to be new commercial but it's sort ofi] more of a conversion d of course, general hospital is more of a public facility. i'm not saying these aren't very good things btd in perspective we probably need to see more commercial. p.d.r. grorktse retail, or office fwrothe in the eastern neighborhoods. a few things we might be ableçç do to appropriate those are to go back and look at some of the prescriptions that we have in regards to preserving p.d.r. there was a situation where we went 1/3 p.d.r. to allow 2/3 office retail in the innovative p.d.r. that we passed. i think that maybe by interpreting that more flexibly and while reaching the same goal but notw3 make every project ha a third p.d.r. within it, that might be something to think

about. also, i think there areç a coue of other things that have been pointed out to me. and i read these, not necessarily in this report but in general the small enterprise workplace. i think there's a requirement that 50% of thoseç have toç b0 square feet or less which is probably a little bit loww3 and maybe a little bit unrealistic. i think what would really be helpful is if we were able to enlist s.f. maid, which has been quite successful in bringing back p.d.r. uses in san francisco or preserving them or growingi] them. this is exactly the kind of incubators we want to try to woman come up with a plan to -- try to come up withok a plan th is consistent with easternçó neighborhoods. or at least interpret them in a wayt( that we end up with consistency with the eastern

neighborhoods plans but also interpreting them more flexibly to allow situations where it might make it economically more feasible if someone could come in and be able to distribute their office, for example, for flexibly. i think that might tend to make it for possible for more things to be developed, still keeping the 1/3 p.d.r., which is a good requirement. so i think those are a few things that i noticed in talking to other people and reading over this report and i really thank you for the report. it's very instructive. and finally, i think we all agree on theç end of year repo about the need for the parks which, we're working on, and for transportation, which, in a previously industrial area, obviously did not have those features included. so as we move forward, we have to continue to provide funding for those, hopefully through the growth of some new projectsç tt

are allowable but looking at some of these rules and see fg there's some flexibility to allow them toç move forward.ç president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, maybe staff couldñ $elp me understand this. on page 3 of the memo, under evictions it says about 1% are 95 units of citywide owner movins were in the eastern neighborhoods and says another 80 units in tau!eastern neighborhoods were also subject to the alice act, which is about 10% of the city total. so if i make some calculations, in the city that were subject to owner move-in and to ellis act over a five-yearç period. is that right? or approximately 200 a year?

>> i don't have the numbers here, but it was based on theç five-year reporting period. >> commissioner sugaya: ok. that seems a little alarming to me. i don't know. 200 a year -- more than that. anyway, 2,000 over five years seems like a lot ofi] housing loss. and i don't know if this statistic is -- you know, if%q we'd been made aware of this previously or not. it seems like a lot of units being lost to this kind of activity. the other thing is in all the reports there is a table of unitst( lost in san francisco between 2006 and 2010 and 129 units over that period were attributed to unit mergers.ç having been on the commission

during that time, i don't remember that we've approved 129 merged units, except that maybe there are mergings that aren't subject to commission approval. >> that's true. we based this on the -- not on åat was approved here but actually from the department of building inspection records, which shows when units are merged when they either remove a wall or remove a kitchen and it's stateed that it'sñr mergin commissioner sugaya: i have to look at the exact language and i think it's section 317 but i think it depends on the zoning district. i think we can get back to you on that. >> maybe we can have a staff memo on that. suing

commissioner sugaya: sure. >> also, when we come out with a report sometime in april we will have that information. commissioner sugaya: ok, we can wait until then, i think. but if we could have some evaluation of the kind of thing that the director just mentioned, where there is commission jurisdiction and where there is --ç >> ok. commissioner sugaya: ok.i] president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: this is a lot of reallyv: good work. unfortunately the time the too short so -- to really appreciate it. we could have a workshop in which to ask pointed questions of everything. there is one item that concerns me and that is that the housing jobs linkage program since 2007 has not produced any revenue and that is alarming, particularly turned mandate thatxdok we're supposed to densify thet( city d

we're going in the opposite direction. densifying without providing the necessary balance with jobs doesn't really get us anywhere, because we're becoming evenq of a bedroom community than we potentiallyç already are. i'm interested to see changes and i'd like to see a very concerted effort to start capturing revenue again, xly if we are having main use changes where previously p.d.r. and other use is being adapted. 25,000 square feetç would automatically trigger that. butç just creating a land use change without it coming folly in -- formally in front of this commission, those types of revenues may not be recorded or required because there is no

trigger which flags that there are additional moneys to be paid for the jobs housing linkage fund. there was one comment mr. murphy made regarding the larger project sites in the former p.d.r. area, and that is something which i wasç already concerned abk doing the eastern neighborhood plan. one issue is land use and rezoning and land use reassignment are one thing, but also finding sites on parcel sizes which fit the newly designated uses is quite different.ç not all parcel cuts really adapt to the zoning uses. the act of development in pursuit of new uses in the eastern neighborhood. may we take a close look at what is being proposed.ç how does a code respond to

what's being propo#e3 does a code fail to address aç what could be? i think none of the things which are happening, particularly in innovation space and new job creation can't happen unless we understand the physical implicationsç of what these spaces need. and i thinksthat san francisco, because it's an compensational urban environment has almost more possibility to capture new points of employment because it makes it possible to create and provide space forç those activities to occur. we are a relativelyç small cit in comparison to new york orç some of the larger metropolitan centers across the country, however, we are a -- we have a large, large share of the percentage of innovation here and i think we need to prepare and be ahead of the game in our physical ability to make those things happen. i talk about fashion and we're

not really the noted fashion capital of the combruents. i think that's in new york somewhere or los angeles. but we have a lot of young designers doing work here. that same thing holds for technology and innovation. i could go on and on and on, not to talk about the chocolate. but i really would like us to be poised to capture that really with allçç of its might becaun its basic d.n.a. san francisco for me is the entrepreneurial city andç i think for us to be able to accommodate that, that is where our future will be. president miguel: commissioner? >> commissioner wu: thank you again. i'm trying to understand what all the goals were and to understand what we're getting from the goals.

the eastç soma goals include attracting jobs for local residents, encouraging a mix of income, increasing affordable housing. i just want to flag a couple of things that raise questions for me. around the jobs. loss of p.d.r.ç is something tç raises questions. around the mix of housing or mix of income in the affordable housing that valencia gardens was the bulk of what the affordable housing increase was or the numbers were and thatq%y not really be new housing or new affordable housing opportunities and then commissioner sugaya raced the issue of ellis act. there were 80 of those and 760 new affordable housing units. actually, the 80 is 10% of that and represents quite a lot in affordableç housing.

i just wanted to flag those issues. ommission hearing so we'll continue to be part of this conversation. finally, i wanted to commend the department on the work at the park at 17 and folsom. i've been hearing a lot of really great work. president miguel: my remarks prepare echo a lot of what commissioner antonini and commissioner moore, as well as those of dan murphy. i'm not satisfyed that we're doing sufficient to increase jobs in the eastern neighborhoods. i think maybe some of the interpretations, if notç the actually code,ç needs to be tweaked to some extent. i think we have to rethink and the example of american can is probably a very good example of how things can workt(.

that concept goes right along with made in san francisco and many of those entrepreneurs. i'm familiar with a number of firms in plan? purchase fromç and generate ne manufacturing in the p.d.r. field, the small manufacturing field. a number of old-time san francisco retailers and wholesalers that do this, and i think perhaps we need to hear from the people who are actually on the ground.t(çq we sit here and goçó over the statistics, which are excellent. they give us a guide, but we are not actually on the ground trying to do the work and trying to develop spaces in which the

work can be done locally and provide the jobs.ç working for perhaps a group with american can and made in san francisco would give us a different viewpoint and allow us at leastç to hear$ some practicable suggestions. and i think in my mind it could be the interpretation of eastern neighborhoods rather than actually changing anything absolute.ok president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i just wanted toscomment a little bit on the figures we were looking at. i thought we said a total of -- of net units? >> for the five years.q

commissioner antonini: that's after we were taking away the units of various things? >> it's net. commissioner antonini: i think it's a very good figure. i went through each of the four districts spelled out in the eastern neighborhoods, even though it says lost throughç condoç conversion, they really went lost. i added up 15 in the mission, seven in showplace square and one in central waterfront. i think maybe we're looking at two definitions here but it looks like that's not a very big number relative to -- >> i think when commissioner wu noted the valencia gardens, unfortunately the way we account for things is that was demolished in 2004 so that was netted out in 2004 and the best

we can do is state that it's thk rebuilding. so that's how we managed to convey that that was once affordable housing. that disappeared and then came back. it's a matter of how we are accounting and so -- commissioner antonini: but i think on the balance, the numbers are quite impressive on the residential, even though -- >> as far as new construction. commissioner antonini: yeah, new construction and even the ones lost appear to be less than what is summarized in the summary. >> relative to the citywide, yes. commissioner antonini: thank you. president miguel: commissioner boarden? commissioner borden: i want to echo the commissioners commending staff on this hard work. we only passed the eastern neighborhoods in 2008 so we're looking at data that precedes thatç and we can see some uptas -- upticks ofç what happened i

2009 and 2010 but we won't really know some of the results until we see the next report, which is kind of the challenge i think in judging the success or theñrç failure of easternçi] neighborhoods. i think some important points have been made about looking for new industry and the way we define space very rigidly but we also got into that situation because ofç that it's an interesting quandary to be in if we were able to predict the next best great industry, we all might not be sitting here. but an interesting note in the business times today, the san francisco metropolitan area has the largestç self-employment re in the country. so that's abouti] 10% of the population and i think that's a whole other dynamic when you're talking about space because you're not talking about commercial space but residential space or a hybrid thereof and it

creates a lot of other things to take into consideration. but i would like to look at the issue of the open space, the ground floor and dwelling composure. many projects come before us and wet( need to look at a better w or standards to apply that that seem to make more sense because it is often something we see. president miguel: director? >> thank you. i wanted to mention a couple of things. first, i appreciate your comments and this is a lot of data. this is ainled kind of a little bit of a test for us,w3 right, because this detailed monitoring -- while we've done it in the downtown plan it's a different tenor in the eastern neighborhoods plan. one of the lessons of the eastern neighborhood plan was that we should never take on such a large area at once and so

the amount of code changes and plan changes that happened all at once certainly require us to look at it. you adopted some "cleanup" amendmentsç and i think that i going to happen over the next couple of years. the one issue that has come up ç lot, and it is a more fundamental issue, is this issue of p.d.r. space and whether we should create a more flexible allowance in how we use p.d.r. land. this was one of the basic tenants of the eastern much industrial landçç should keptxd industrial versus converted. we took about half of the m zone land and changed it to a mixed use. so about half of that land was converted to allow mixed use and the other half wasç changed to p.d.r. as a protection of p.d.r.

businesses. that is still causing concerns and because some of that land, there is a desire, as you heard today, to change potentially the use of some of that land. i would argue thatt( has to hava fairly robust discussion before we do that unlike some of the tweaks with heights on first floors or -- this is a very fundamental part of what eastern neighborhood was all about. i'm happy to have that discussion but i think it's very important that we have a communityç dialogue about that because that was a very basic fundamentalç issue in the easten neighborhoods plan that went a certain direction. if we want to change that now it really calls for having a discussion about it. president miguel: thank you. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: as you were speaking, i remember the heated discussion about what constituted the definition of manufacturing, what is potentially included in defining p.d.r., including at that time

seeing it was trending towards bio medical, towards green and solar and some of those things were goodç ideas. bio medical is primary in mission bay. green quite didn't happen as much as we all thought and now we are finding ourselves on a much more smermental smaller scale technology quand rum. so p.d.r. might be a definition which we update as we go along, together with defining a neutral space which can accommodate all of the above, which is kind of like this -- what did we call it? incubator spa it's a stupid word. i think the discussion is great as long as we're keeping it open in order to promote what we're all kind of dreaming of. i think we should be able toi] so.ç president miguel: commissioner antonini?

commissioner antonini: thank you. i appreciate your remarks. i guess when we're looking at eastern neighborhoods and percentage of p.d.r., i'm not sure if we're also including the yaren that's east of 101 and before 280 around cesar chavez. i'm not sure if that was technically part of eastern neighborhoods. maybe that still is m-1. so our percentage might be higher. as partç of my trim yesterday, drove along valley lane and brisbane and saw lots of p.d.r. businesses there or a lot of office uses. those are some ones that we would like to have here. iti] seemed to be kind of a blended situation. they had a combination office and manufacturing. it was kind of interesting. in the context of whatç we're looking at we have to figure out what we have to do to attract those businesses to san francisco.ç

>> ok, commissioners. thank you. we cani] move on to item number- president miguel: let's take a 10-minute break at this point and then we'll move on. >> the commission is taking a 10-minute recess. thank you. >> the planning commission is back in session. let me make a couple of announcements. as you can see, we do not allow standing in this room during the session. if you cannot find a seat, you need to go to overflow in room 416. the televisions are on. you can monitorç everything tht goes on. front row is generally reserved for staff. çi did make that announcement clear.

commissioners, you are now on item 7, the california high speed rail policy standards. director rahm is bringing this before you. >>w3 before you is a policy statement that the mayor's office is asking several commissions to consider regarding high spiel -- high- speed rail. this is a policy statement. generally, to support high speed rail, that commits us to working with a high-speed rail authority, largely in reflection of the recently adopted busines+ plan, which took a more detailed look at the time line for the real program. ççthis basically suggestsç te commission would support working cooperative with the authority andç other government entities.

iç think the second resolve statement is important and significant to us because of the discussion happening. the commission believes the system must terminate at transkei --ko transbay çtransit center in order to fully realize the benefits of the system. further, supporting caltrans electrification as a means to make the system compatible with the coming train. you may have read about this notion of what is called the startç program, which to -- whh weç have been working for with the transportation authority, the mta, which would be an early first phase of the rail that would involve electrification of california train -- of caltrain. it is important in our planning efforts to terminate at transbay terminal, rather than the current station. i would ask for your

consideration and adoption of this statement. thank you. çpresident miguel: is there any public commentok on this item? i]ç>> suñre hester. i take high-speed rail all the time in europe and loved it. i could not find anything when i went through looking for this hearing. i do not know what you have before you. i wanted to talk about something iç want you to pay attention t, which is we have a terrible, messy intersection at seventh streetxd and 16th street. resulting that intersection is life or death for muni service to third street, connecting the mission to the waterfront at 16th streeti].

because you had shown to you the last time itñr was before you, t was horrible. it was a physical separation between the square, but crow hill, and even the areas east of the freeway, which is mission bay. if this is not a priority level one of the planning department and mta, and really serious -- it is fun designing terminals. çit is messy resolving big problems. but your focus should be not only to push this through, but to yell and scream internally that that has to be resolved. all the rezoning of the square, and petro hill, do not mean swat if you are consigning it to be an underpass/overpass that people cannotq which is the way it is planned right now.

it is not a plan right now. it is 0 yes we draw a little line on the map. çyou need toç putç this on yr calendar and pay attention to it. çi haven't the faintest idea wo is in charge of this atç the department. they have their hands full dealing with transport. he cannot be dealing with this area as well. it needs to be someone who bulldogs' the issue to a head. you are undoing all of your work on a showplace square terminal if you do not get that issue resolved. thank you. >> commissioners, dan murphy. eastern neighborhood city advisory committee had. ç-- head. i heard the final portion of the previous speaker's comments, but i would concur. i didt( not see the language in

the resolution. i was hoping to seezv something that says everybody loves high- speed rail done right. i think that is essentially the message the previous speaker expressed. i want to reiterate that. çi know our incredibly capable planning staff have gone over this issue. theyym have come up with schems to do some magic to 280 that would turn it into a grand boulevard. that seems like a home-run solution for that portion ofç e high-speed rail. as somebody involved in land use in that area, we want to work collaborative we in any way we can to bring that kind of thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. i believe hester pinpointed the lopr