i guess there would not be any sort of retroactive application of policy. there are a lot of programs with bicycle companies that allow employees to take bike's overnight, because they do not use their bikes over night. businesses could take bicycles overnight, for their employees to bicycle back and forth. that would be kind of an enforcement issue, but that is another option that does exist. those companies -- scott sanchez: like a car-share program? commissioner borden: they make available these bicycles. the company pays for it or their employee does. they can take the bicycle overnight from the hotel to their home and bring it back for their work shift. just so you know, that does exist. i do not know how you can force that. i do not know if it makes it more complicated.

president fong: any other general overall comments? commissioner miguel: i was going to make a motion. i would move the department recommendations with two specific comments. one on the schenic sp -- scenic special sign district, that time and enforcemetnt be covered. and maybe refer to political science for consistency. the other -- i quote from your summary. in the scientific natural life -- the sign's natural life, i think that is such a nebulous phrase that i do not know how you would deal with it. i do not know, trying to think

quickly on it, how else you might defy it. however, i do feel that the comments of the zoning administrator, which i appreciate -- i know that our by the book. you have both major and minor firms who decide, after 100 years of business, to change their logo. come on. it is the same business. it is the same business name. they have changed a logo. it is not uncommon. in fact, some of the major firms in the world that deal with logos are based here in san francisco. that should not constitute doing away with a sign, in my mind. changing colors should not do away with it. those types of things -- as long as the name of the business is the same, and everything else, i cannot believe that what i consider more cosmetic changes

should trigger the ordinance in doing away with that sign. i believe that is an imposition we should not put on businesses. >> is that part of your motion to make that change? commissioner miguel: correct. president fong: do you have a comment on that, or a clarification? >> i wanted to reiterate what is in the current code. before we go on and you make a motion and vote, the resolution seeks only approval of the full ordinance. if you would like to recommend approval for the topics discussed, to amend the recommendation -- approval of the portion of the ordinance specifically requires what would

happen to the rest of the ordinance, if it comes back. vice president wu: i think the question of what happens to the rest of the ordinance is what i wanted to address. i think that the phase two, we may still see some problems about different topics being bunched together, and the difficulty possibly of getting through all of them. one thing i thought about was parking in residential neighborhoods versus parking in c3. i wanted to bring up specifically the changes around f.a.r. an affordable housing.

i believe there is a task force that a lot of people are sitting on, looking at the inclusion of housing. i think affordable housing should be in that conversation as well. commissioner moore: i wanted to echo what commissioner wo u just said. today we had four issues, and it took us awhile to voice our questions and concerns. you are triple loading that for the second phase. we could take it in small increments. we usually do not work with these complexities, including this language. i think that is the best

guarantee to help you move forward. if you could dial it back to a slightly smaller number of issues -- commissioner antonini: i guess the procedure is that the phase two will come back to us in late march or early april for the same sort of procedure we are going through today. is that my understanding? >> if that is what you would like me to do, i can certainly do that. commissioner antonini: i think that would be wise. it is up to the other commissioners whether they want this to be broken into two separate sessions. just because we have a lot more numbers may not mean it is twice as complicated, but it could be. whatever the commission would feel is inappropriate way to do it, that would be good, in one session or two, depending how long you think it would take to

get through the various parts of it. >> if i may, through the president -- if you could just identify how you would like that split up for me, i am happy to organize the report based on that. president fong: if this is ok with everyone, within all the items -- i think there is 60 of them -- if there seems to be some natural clustering or family-like categories that come together -- in essence, what i phase two into separate sections. we would have phase one, two, and three in separate legislation. >>just to cluster, the cluster that comes to mind to me would be looking at the sheet justin

passed out. lcc use with nonconforming uses and the two sud's. commissioner migueloore: parkin- >> i am suggesting the cluster of those six items be one phase and the other the second phase. commissioner moore: could you repeat that? >> just looking at it just now. automotive uses, accessory, and the lcc, the nonconforming uses, and the washington- broadway sud and [inaudible] >> that is good. commissioner moore: that couldn't be discussed as district issues. perhaps when you see how much

work is you can pull that one out again. the location specific areas, you get more public push back and questions also. i am saying without knowing what is entailed, who might come out to speak to it, that is a possibility. i also wanted to ask president fong, mr. star did a good job in summarizing this but it came very late. we did get it with our package that we can spend the correct time and preparing. it was quite late last night. i appreciate that you are sorting out and doing it similar to what you did today. an excellent way of doing it. >> i appreciate that. much more time. commissioner moore: that is what

we would be expecting. commissioner sugaya: looking at the next item which also deals with a washington-broadway sud, what it makes sense to break those out and include those in the discussion are not? -- or not? i would suggest that unless you are ready to vote on those today or if you want a presentation on those today that you continue. >> the city attorney is informing me your recommendation -- the question encompasses 4b and that cannot be discussed at this point. it is about 4b.

we have to talk to that when we get to 4b. ok. who was the second arab motion? >> i was. -- who was the seconder of the motion. >> i was. >> we may be able to unload some of that from the past. would that be advisable? >> i would recommend you keep the staff report from february. >> february, ok. >> and the 351 pages. >> of course. thank you. >> call the question. >> i will try this. my understanding the motion is for approval of the adoption of staff recommended modification based on the five areas you covered today which are clerical

modification, bike parking, signs, and canopies. that modification is the maker of the motion does not want to include cosmetic change as something to contribute to the elimination of signs. and -- i am sorry. time of enforcement. >> on the temporary signs such as something for america's cup on the embarcadero,. of expiration, -- the embarcadero, period of expiration. >> on the motion as it has been clarified. commissioner borden, aye.

commissioner aye, aye. commissioner moore, aye, commissioner wu, aye. commissionerwe will come back ie three. the next is automotive uses and nonconforming uses, washington- broadway sud's. >> if i am making you do it at a date specific. >> i did not hear a bit specific. >> perhaps night -- march 29 and april 5. that would be april 5. the phase two would come back on april 5. >> interface 3. >> and face three -- phase

three. the divided portions would come a week after that? april 12. >> phase three would come back on april 12. >> does this require an extension from the board? >> you have one more week so, yes. >> ok. if there are and exceptions to that motion, if no one has a problem. we would cover those dates. we would cover those dates. thank you, commissioners. >> ready to entertain item 4b. zoning map amendments.

>> i need to recused myself of this item. >> we need a motion for refusal of commissioner fong. commissioner moore, aye. commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner fong, aye. commissioner borden, aye. >> i understand you want to move the portion of the embarcadero which is a map change and that is under this item as well since you voted the previous item to change the code so that portion can move forward. and how the rest of it continue to april. -- have the rest of it continue to april.

>> commissioners. commissioner moore: the only question i would ask you to explain to us is, is it only a map changed? in a larger discussion, this happens to be the port's main street. i would prefer not to take this out separately but see it in aio get some guidance. >> again it would only prohibit general advertising signs and signs of greater than 200 square feet. in your last motion to approve to change the planning code.

this motion would make the map correspond to that. >> if you are entertaining the possibility of taking action as staff has recommended, i would recommend that you open public comment before you take that action. commissioner wu: is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> is your microphone on? commissioner antonini: it sounds like this is a consistency with our first action separate from the sud considerations for hearing scheduled in april. i would move to approve subject to commissioner comments. >> i will set in that.

>> is there any commission discussion? commissioner moore: i am not so comfortable with it. it is -- i would like to rent -- understand the discussion. this is my way of thinking and doing wings. i was -- did not want to do that. -- this is my weight and thinking -- of thinking and doing things. >> i will not supported either. if we are dealing with the sud's, we are dealing with them in the future. this may be smaller consequences but it seems like if we're dealing with the sud, why not deal with it all at once? commissioner wu: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: maybe you

can talk about what this map you want us to approve has on it. do we have a copy? of our old presentation. >> it is not on the map but the description -- two documents. one is the zoning map. the other is the code. they appear -- the phoenix streets appear on the map. in the map i give you i did not give you that because it would be too complicated. it is described in that package of what street, to what street along embarcadero. it is up to you. it can be considered the next time. this is in consistency with your last action. >> you could draw a distinction between the mapping we're voting

on as part of this measure, as opposed to the establishment or the -- of the sud's and why this is consistent with what we passed earlier. >> make a distinction? >> we're trying to get some clarification. >> in the memo i give you a described -- i describegive youi described -- this is one of the items you approved. the suggestion i made was to allow that portion to go forward on the second part of the legislation which makes the map changes. you have already included it in there. until you bowed to include it on the map, the document does not get changed. >> what i am understanding is as part of our first action we did expand that street to include

the broadway, the area you are speaking about. embarcadero. and so to make our action finalized, we should approve this map change. it does not have anything to do with the legislation that will be before us in april. >> correct. >> ok. commissioner moore: i believe that for the sake of comprehensiveness, will understand all issues -- we understand all issues supporting the i97ég to make the map change which i think requires other things to be considered. i am not prepared to do that. i think i would say there is nothing lost by holding that until we discuss the issue. it does not change anything. i do not believe it needs to be done as a piecemeal action. >> we're not asking for any of

the changes to be made to the map that will be discussed at a later date. we're asking that you act on the portion of the map relative to the embarcadero stanek street bridge to have recommended approval of. it would be bifurcating, to be consistent with the last issue to take an action on the embarcadero scenic sign issue. all the other mapping issues to a later date when you will address those planning code issues. commissioner moore: i appreciate your explanation. that does not change how i feel about it. commissioner sugaya: mr. sanchez, if lenders to do correctly, -- if i understood you correctly, the motion has already been made. the motion affects what would be item no.

6 which is adding the embarcadero -- excuse me. that has to do with the scenic street. >> staff is recommending that adding embarcadero to the scenic street and approve the mapping changes to a later date. you discussed the relative tax changes. consistent with the last action. -- you discussed the relative changes. commissioner miguel: had we not separated things down, if i had been only on this, we would have had these items as one item, basically. that is what we're doing.

commissioner moore: do we have a map so we can see the map? we have that anywhere? it is in words? >> it is in words but it is along the embarcadero. commissioner wu: any other discussion? secretary, could you repeat the motion? >> mine understanding is that you would -- my understanding is you would pull out the embarcadero scenic sign area and task that today to be mapped. all other components of the mapping legislation that is before you would be continued. i am assuming to your april 5 hearing. >> yes. >> on that motion. you asked me to call the question. commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, athenaeum.

commissioner moore, no. commissioner wu, yes. this issue will come back to you on april 5. the vote was 5-1. as i announced, the project sponsors have asked you to continue this in -- item indefinitely. >> salesforce has decided to suspend their current activities on the site at mission bay and out of -- have asked for an indefinite continuance. i talked to them to confirm this was the action they were requesting.

the confirmed the would like an indefinite continuance. the application is still open. they do not know whether they will move ahead with the mission bay development. they are committed to staying in the city and will be looking at leasing space downtown. the reason for the suspension of the development activity in mission bay is they are growing at a pace they believe they need to accommodate sooner than when the mission bay buildings could be made available. i also confirmed with them, as you may know, they bought that land, right. the on 14 acres of land in mission bay. if they choose not to develop it, where of course would be concerned -- we of course would be concerned this would be developed in another fashion. as the landowner they agreed they would support future development. that meets the design principles and direction we have been working with them on and you

have strongly supported in the past. there were very supportive of that as well. -- they were very supportive of that as well. they do not know when they are moving forward but they have asked for an indefinite continuance from the commission at this time on that item. commissioner miguel: i along with anyone else in the city has been concerned about the future of the business here. and disappointed in this unexpected announcement. for many reasons. one, even though we're not losing salesforce as an entity in san francisco, what we are losing is the ability to do something in mission bay which has been missing. that is good design. and the concept of good design for an area as large as that is.

as well as a different in concept of how technology firms have positioned themselves as far as their relationship to the city is the best way i can put it. it was a new way of doing that, -- it , and it was an expression that this was the right way to go. the only other thing i can comment on is there had been another entity that was interested in that property. and that much property. and due to the entrenchment -- intransigent secrecy, the word was not out there.

this has been -- for over a century. finally at the insistence and after a legal action by the neighborhood, produced an institutional master plan. that institution a master plan shows that they are overcapacity at the campus. even though they are over capacity, they would like to expand to a total of 1 million square feet, which is nearly impossible, considering the size of allocation. and that in the next 10 to 15 years, they could possibly use another 1 million square feet. i take a look at that and take a look at the property at mission bay, which is approximately 2 million square feet. they were looking at that property prior to