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 local problem. i do now the director and staff have been working diligently on it and have come with some possible solutions, as murphy w3just mentioned. i have been in a few of the meetings here and there over

this, particularly with people in dog patch and the crow hill -- petro hill -- petero hilçre, and groups from mission bay. that is going to move forward, only if the projectç itself mos forward. i also have been fortunate enough to have been on high- speed rail in europe and asia, and it works. it works fantastically. i see no reason why it would not work here. commissioner more -- moore? commissioner moore:ç i am generally in support of the

statements made. w3i do support the level of detail they are touching on, whicht( i assume would be impli, that does not only apply to the final product of high speed rail, but applies to the electrified portions we currently have as well, because the two pieces are part of the same strategy. what i wouldç hope is that -- i am not trying to hector the pr))q(u -- is this the way of high speed longer than expected, with the transbay terminal as the endpoint for high speed regional rail -- with the commencement and building up of the terminal, that would not only occur at higher speeds. higher speeds is enough to start doing it. commissioner borden:ç i wantedo concur with commissioner moore's statement that we should say in

the resolution we want the spurs built into the transbayç termil in anticipation of the highest speed, but being able to accommodate the speed weç are t now. obviously, the entire terminal projectç is only justifiable wh high-speed rail. there are so many other wonderful things about that project. i think the real key is we bring it to downtown sanç francisco, with the number ofç commuters n the 280. occasionally, i have to go down, and even with the issues around t(caltrain, çit reminds us how important this is. caltrain is still in a precarious position with a non- dedicatedq there was a report that came out that it use -- if you got rid of

it, you would haveñr toç add 2 lanes of traffic to 280. you cannot do that. it is critical we support high speed rail and the electrification ofxd caltrain, because we need it. even in a downç economy,ç the traffic is terrific between san francisco and san jose. with our airport, we have this complication of the runways, whenever there is fog. landings and takeoffs are reduced 50%. that is because we get an fha extension because our runways are too close to each other -- an faa ex exception -- çexemption i]because our runwas are too close to each other. with the fog and the traffic, we should make a stronger statement about why this is a critical issue for the state at large for them to consider. maybe you can talk a little bit

about what is happening with the city response. in the packet, it said we want to get all the different city agencies to make kind of a joint coordinated recommendation. i would like to know what we are looking at. çjohn rahaim: çthere have been a number of letters cosigned by department directors, namely myself, the director of theq transportation authority, and the redevelopment agency, which address a number of concerns, one of them being a concern we identified a year and a half ago, which is the intersection of 67 and lowering high speed rail. that is not the only issue. there are a number of issues like that that have been identified along the corridor, and a number of issues with stations proposed through the city, where theç trains and to the city. there are a number of the tablatures i believe we have

if not, i am happy to bring us back to you. there hasñr been a lot of work between multiple agencies in the cityi], our response to the current state of affairs. what is driving this resolution today is the interest the city has in seeing this fast start program as a potentialiñ faster getting the project off the ground. çóthe city is working with other communitiesç along the corrido, including san jose, to try to get some concurrence about that program. we think there is a potentialç window of opportunity hereok to actually get some concurrence along the peninsula for the first time about where we could be headed. the city position all along has been that it is very important that we address the problems

identified and get the transbay as opposed to fourth and king. çthere(h@s been discussionok at stopping it. we are very concerned about that. there is an opportunity here to start really working on this early first phase. commissioner antonini:ç0h agree with all the other commissioners'ç comments, most specifically that caltrain in theç context of the high-speed rail project is a separate entity, and an important one at the present time, one that needs to be viewed in and of itself. whatever we can do with electrification and completion of the connection toç the transbayi]ç çterminal is realy important. ridership will be enhanced even with the present train if people can easilyç access that link to the peninsula and the south bay from part, from unique, from

other places it is more difficult to do now. it requires a longer trip. and of course it would be great if we could sometime in the future have a hearing that brings us up-to-date with what is going on. i certainly support the seventh and 16th street grade separation, with the train instead of theç treats -- stres being in the tunnel. it seems it could be done easily and quickly. maybe i am missing something. but it is easier than trying to lower or raise the street. that would seem to be the way to go. i would support also at other placesçó up and down the peninsula, where it may at some cost to the project but it is a lot safer and a lot better, if i could have a grade separation. and maybe the closing of some of the crossings that are not as critical. that would be ai] decision that would have to be made in

individual towns. commissioner sugaya: i do not think we are spending billions of dollars on transbay to have high-speed rail and at fourth and townsend. i may be the only person who thinks this way, but i think communitiesç along the entire route, including san francisco, may need to make some compromises and sacrifices if this thing is ever going to get built. all the noise that has been generated along the peninsula -- it is likei used to live dow. and we used to cross the tracks at least threeç or four times a week. çso i understand the issues of high speed coming down the existing right of way for the road. at the same time, i think if this major project is ever going to get billed, it is going to

have to -- what is the right word? çoklocali] communities may havo sacrifice some things. commissioner moore: and again the devil is in the details. you have visub& impact because of overhead lines. you have potentially the issue of noise impacts from the track system, and depending what wheels you run on your electrical train. but thereok are examples around the world where it has been done on a large, regionalç scale successfully. çi assume we can learn from others on this. commissioner moore: do we have a motion? commissioner antonini: move to support the resolution. >>t( emotion on the floor is for approval of the resolutionç --a motion on the floor is for approval of theç resolution, te policy statement before you. commissionert( antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye.

commissioner moore:ç aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner moore: aye -- president miguel: aye. ç>> the motion passes unanimously. you are on item 84401 grove street. -- you are on item eight for 401 grove street. >> there was authorization for a project to demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct a new mixed use development containing 63 dwelling units and approximately 5000 square feet of retail space, 32 residential spaces, three commercial spaces, and 2 carfareç spaces - car share spaces. six were depicted in a tandem configuration, which would xdresult in 39 residential spac. staff failed to identify these

as panda spaces, and the written application by sponsor indicated permitted by the planning cgdd. therefore the conditions of approval limited the total number of parking spaces in an amount that did not account for the seven additional parking spaces that would result from the tandem configuration. theç sponsor is requesting thee seven additional spaces, for a total of 39 residential parking spaces and 44 spaces for the overall development. this item was continued from the curing of generic 12. accessory parking is not retired for residential uses. ç-- this itemç was continued m the hearing of the january 12. there is a principal permitted maximum of four dwellingç spacs per unit. there may be 0.75 spaces, subject to certain conditions.

çstaff believes this would prioritizeç motorized vehicles and degrade the pedestrian çenvironment. multiple policiesxd in the genel plan and the market and octavia plan envisioned a built environment that discouragesxd private automobiles as the primary mode of travel in walkable and transit-rich neighborhoods. staff has received one letter from the hayes valley neighborhood association. the letter reiterates they support the project as a whole, but the group is opposed to the request for parking below the levels principally permitted by the planning code. staff recommends the commission does approve the request to amend the previous authorization to allow the additionalç parkig spaces. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. presidentç miguel: project gsor?