great step toward. this could be a rather good afterdeck code reform. >> thank you. next speaker, mr. paulson. >> i'm originally from the sunset. ♪ your shining star ♪ no matter who you are ♪ shining bright tuzee ♪ ♪ when you can truly be ♪ shining bright to see ♪ ♪ war your district can truly be

♪ ♪ ♪ your shining star ♪ ♪ no matter who you are ♪ shining bright to see ♪ when your district can truly district ♪ shining bright for you to see ♪ ♪ would your district can truly be. -- what your district can truly be ♪ ♪ won't you give it to the sense that, please ♪ ♪ >> thank you. next speaker. >> the afternoon, supervisors. there are three major points. the caravel section should not

be included, but done separately. i would urge you not to send it forward to the full board. but do it right and do it now. the second is the issue that i have as a former staffer working on the neighborhood commercial districts. the forms that you have and there's a you do not have to look at all the controls and have all of that explained. . the third issue is the height increases of 5 ft.. it seems to be in general a very good idea because it allows more space for the technical issues, but in the nc 1 districts in the outer sunset district, they are

surrounded by rh1 districts and they have only 35 for height limits. if you give them a 45 ft. height, they will really stick out. thank you. >> thank you. would anyone else like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. in the concluding remarks? >> thank you. again, i would conclude that the committee take into recommendation the full board comments or tomorrow. and mr. warmers comment, i appreciate them. we need to look into them to make sure there are no unintended consequences. and of course, to mr. rad ulovich, we need to simplify

it this as quickly as possible. if we are doing the training legislation, we might do that. and to invest that came out, we have to be here you and -- and to inga that came out, we absolutely hear you. we will do outreach to the community as regards how to do that. and finally on the 5 ft. increased, even if it is close to an rh1 area, i think there is a benefit to allowing additional height to attract more ground floor spaces.

i would ask that you send this forward with recommendation. >> i will make the motion to amend. i am very supportive of this legislation and a big fan of ncd. it allows for really good urban planning within a commercial area and to allow neighborhoods to be able to work to impact the future of their neighborhoods. i want to thank supervisor chiu for bringing this forward. >> thank you to your staff and yourself for bringing this forward. to improve the definition of trade, shop, and the planning code. it is very smart. i personally was very surprised

at how antiquated this particular part of the code with these constraints have been. i also believe that the changes that you have suggested will have an impact even on the south district 10. we are lucky to have tenants that manufacture and sell goods in both locations. i'm pretty excited about what will be happening. the crux of want to thank you for your thorough ness -- >> i want to thank you for your thoroughness for reaching out to everyone on this. i am also want to say either forward on the noise -- low frequency noise issues on the planning code as well. supervisor wiener has moved the amendment. can we give a positive recommendation without objection? rex it -- >> if we could

authorize the clerk to make the amendments as well since it is coming so quickly through committee and they are not substantive in nature. >> sure, the court can make sure that those amendments are knowledge. -- the clerk can make sure that those amendments are acknowledged. without objection is, colleagues. >> thank you. >> mr. evans, could you please call item 3, 4, and five together? >> item number 3, an ordinance to expand the applicability of bicycle parking requirements, exempt bicycle parking from a floor-area ratio calculations, permit the conversion of automotive service stations located on primary transit streets. item #4, an ordinance amending the san francisco planning code

by repealing obsolete sections and amending sections to make various clerical modifications. and item number five, an ordinance amending the planning code to allow for reactivation of limited commercial uses in districts under a conditional use authorization. >> let me just say that president david chiu is the sponsor of 3, 4, 5. and on number five, supervisors olague and composts -- and campos are co-sponsors. >> i'm the legislative aide to supervisor david chiu.

if i could just have the committee -- the committees indulgent about how we have gotten here. last year in the middle of 2011, president chiu had worked for a livable city and other stakeholders on a significant ordinance that amended the planning code in numerous ways. it was about 345 pages and was related primarily to controls in the northeastern part of the city with some impact that were beyond the northeastern part of the city. i'm happy to report that over the course of the second part of 2011, we've actually had five or six hearings and through the diligent work of aaron starr and others who are here, we have worked to get the wheel the

ordinands into its constituent parts. the we have three of those ordnances before you. there are for five more pending. if i could speak briefly to the specifics to each of these three ordnances, i will speak before -- the overall point of the ordinance i would say is twofold. it was to delete obsolete sections, fix redundancies, and clean up the code. and also furthered the widely held principles and policies in the general plan, such as the creation and encouragement of general -- of affordable housing, and sustainable activities like bicycling. and to get those things in line more with these policies. this goes through and lead just -- as the legislative digests

expects. one of the things we are removing, to give you an idea, 263.3, which is removing a special height and bulk revisions. the last piece of that dilapidated pier, which is right under the bay bridge, was removed a few years ago and will not be rebuilt. it seems silly to have provisions in the planning code that relate to know logger existent years. -- to no longer existing years. moving onto item three, and please feel free to interrupt me if you have any particular questions -- >> don't worry. we will. >> i have been around long

enough to know that you probably will. related to the provisions run bicycle parking and automotive related services, the bike part of this ordinance exempts part -- exempts bicycle parking along with others in existence. it does not count with developers to provide bark -- by parking. -- bicycle parking. it is a small way to standardize the requirement of the bicycle parking in the related code. gas stations have a lot of people coming in and out. they can slow down transit.

we want to make sure that some gas stations are on primary transit corridors. that is essentially what item three dads, and a few other smaller pieces. item three is substantive as well -- i'm sorry, item 5 is substantive as well. it relates to the economic vitality of our commercial corridors. that is an ordinance related to commercial limited uses, and limited corner commercial uses. these are used as defined in the planning code. with regard to limited commercial uses, which existed prior to 1960, but essentially had been closed at some point -- it will allow them to be reactivated. we see this as a way to

activate on our corners. elsie's he was developed -- lcc's was constructed and developed with octavia in mind. it allows for 100 ft. from the corner. a lease holder that has a corner use that needs to go beyond 50 ft. to make it work, otherwise, it's just blank space in this case, the legislation would allow that to happen. this is why president chiu would like to move these three ordnances, and in particular, item five. there are some neighborhood merchants who are interested in unveiling themselves of this provision, which has been in

production for about a year. the small business commission endorsed those items in particular. we have the support of livable city and many other organizations and individuals along the way. that is my rundown of the ordinance. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for being censusing. i see no questions. anyone from the public would buy to speak? -- anyone from the public like to speak? patricia. please line up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am the special project

instructor at the san francisco bicycle coalition appeared on behalf of our 12,000 members, i would like to encourage you to adopt the legislation that would enable the bicycle parking to be exempted from the floor area. this smart piece of legislation would help ensure individuals have a safe and secure place to ride our bikes at home and at work. this will be placed on par with car parking. we think that by allowing the bicycle parking to be exempt from the floor area, i will create -- it will create an incentive rather than penalize. the real-estate market needs to have this common sense and flexibility. we ask that you support this

piece of legislation and allow developers and builders to create more secure bicycle parking and make sure that others have a secure place to store their bicycle so they will be there when they go home. >> thank you. >> i'm very happy that we are here today. i just wanted to make a few points. on a bicycle parking, we actually -- car parking is exempt from far. we are creating parity in this instance between bike parking and car parking. any sponsor that wants to go beyond what their requirements say is this incentivized now. a -- is disincentivized now.

one parking space for every other unit is too little if you want a lot of bite. -- a lot of bikes. and the bicycle could take up a big part of your unit. in these transit rich areas, we think this is good public policy. the other is reactivating the corner commercial uses. we have sort of done an about- face in city planning. in the 1960's we said we will have residential districts, commercial districts, and manufacturing districts and never the twain shall meet. that is a poor match for san francisco. a lot of the existing commercial buildings in these districts were given a reprieve. but that's based can never be reactivated. it has lapsed. a great example in my neighborhood trifuno the corner of 20th and guerrero, that

cannot be used as a residential unit because people will be looking in your front window. this would allow the reactivation of those spaces, as well as slightly larger commercial spaces, but only in the rm districts. we decided to wait for the rto district of a larger rm districts, you will allow those larger commercial spaces. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. we're going to close public comment in a moment. >> ♪ get your motor running head out of the great highway fire all of your guns at once and explode into parking space like a true natures child you were born to the -- born

to be wild born to be wild did your motor running city going to make it happen by year your guns at once and explode into parking by good -- bicycle space born to be wild and i am running on empty running blind running blind it into the city sun and want some parking to find it running on empty running blind running blind and i want the parking, to and i do not even know what i'm looking sometimes to find i don't even know what i am looking to the city to find ♪ supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker.

>> thank you very much. we have been waiting for a long time to reach this point with this legislation. and i will urge the committee to please move ahead with what the chair wants to do as soon as possible. a lot of businesses are depending on this for this such rigid, and i urge the city to pass the motions. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you, thank you, sir. anyone else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i wanted to add my name to items 3 and 5. if there is no objection, can we move all these items forward as the committee report with a positive recommendation for consideration on july 24, 2012

board meeting? without objection, thank you. thank you. could you please call item number 6? >> item number six, ordinance amending the planning code to create a new definition of student housing to permit the conversion of student housing to residential units and prohibit the conversion of residential units to student housing. supervisor mar: supervisor winner is the sponsor. -- supervisor wiener is the sponsor. supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. chairman. this legislation, which has gone through very, very extensive process -- several trips back and forth between the land use committee and the planning commission as well as the various stakeholders involvements. this legislation will help us to achieve a goal of creating new student housing without

cannibalizing existing and scarce residential housing stock. the legislation provides the definition of student housing for the first time that is applicable throughout the planning code. the clear definition of student housing is part of an effort to address the shortage of student housing available in san francisco, a need that was brought to the attention of the planning department and the board of supervisors by housing experts, post-secondary educational institutions, and developers. the goal of the legislation is to address the need for student housing in a manner that acknowledges and protect our existing housing stock. in other words, student housing is not the only kind of housing for which there is a severe shortage in san francisco. we have the housing affordability crisis in part because of an imbalance in supply and demand. there's an estimated shortage of as many as 50,000 state and beds in san francisco. this legislation is intended, first and foremost, to encourage

the production of new student housing through incentives. student housing is already exempt, as of a few years ago from inclusion airing housing fees and requirements under certain circumstances. this legislation that we have today before us would also exempt student housing from unit mix requirements in specific eastern neighborhood areas for specific neighborhoods within the eastern neighborhoods zone of the city. it would also reduce the open space requirement to parallel the requirements for single resident occupancy buildings. the goal of the legislation will encourage and incentivize the construction of new student housing. to do this, the legislation would prohibit the conversion of existing housing to student housing. conversely, there is a straightforward task to convert student housing back to regular housing through a review by the

zoning administrator, with inclusionary fees that are due. after drafting this initial legislation which came out of the planning department, i worked with a variety of existing, respected post- secondary institutions to ensure that the legislation would maximize the availability of student housing. the planning commission considered the amendment to address the identified needs and approved them unanimously. these amendments include several things that were incorporated in the substitute legislation that i recently introduced. additionally, we have included amendments as drafted by the mayor's office of housing and the housing action coalition that speaks specifically to contractual arrangements between the property owners and the post-secondary educational facilities to make sure to clarify those relationships and

to make sure that we're not unwittingly does incentivizing student housing creation. we want to be sure that the mayor's office of housing, who will be regulating these, is equipped to ensure the projects are being used for housing. colleagues, this legislation has broad support. it addresses a longstanding -- two longstanding needs of incentivizing the creation of student housing and avoiding the cannibalization of our existing housing stock. the legislation to achieve a good balance, and i ask for your support. if -- are there any introductory remarks? ok, then perhaps the planning department can provide an overview of the legislation. >> quickly, and leroy rogers from the planning department staff. i would like to convey the planning department's gratitude

to supervisor wiener. the commission did acknowledge the shortage of student housing as discussed by the supervisor. the ordinance before this body creates significant incidents to turn the tide and encourage the production of new student housing. this is a vital step. without such action today, the housing of our most vulnerable populations would have been at risk. instead, the ordinance establishes controls for a variety of student housing types throughout the city in a manner compatible with neighborhoods. the commission urges the board to adopt this ordinance that is before you today. i believe the supervisor dave very thorough summary of the ordinance. but if there any questions, i would be happy to provide clarification. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. colleagues, questions? hearing none, i guess we will go to public comment. supervisor mar: i do not see any cards.

supervisor wiener: if there is anyone who would like to make public comment, please step forward. you'll have two minutes. >> hello, i am here today as a trustee of the art institute. it is a very small and historic school. our ability to maintain our existing housing is imperative, and our ability to create a student environment and community. with that, we have been able, with housing, to have great success in our state and retention and financial stability. so thank you so much, supervisor wiener and all of you, for looking at the art institute in who we are. thank you for including us in your thoughts. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i live in the university terrace section of town. i want to thank you for changing the word "adjacent" to "

adjoining." i appreciate that. there's one more word i am concerned about, the word "simmer." i looked it up in the law dictionary, and summer is a word that talks about overall impressions. i am afraid that makes -- allows for broad conversions. i think the intent was to be accepting and respectful and including other religions, not just convents and monasteries. i changed the word order to accommodate -- to take out the word similar and to show respect for all religions. it is to say it is in a religious order, residences -- residential housing, for example, a convent and