presentations to 17 additional stakeholder groups since march 13th and have three more scheduled for a total of 20. you have in your hands a one-page list of outreach meets. it's a separate one-page in green. many hours' of discussions with the various groups helped us craft the changes to the legislation that i will describe in a moment. we believe that these many mode moedfications to the legislation will address the vary inputs and would like to take a moment to thank all of those who took time to meet with us during the last seven weeks for their time and effort. so oewd as you can see on the slide presented to the small business commission, which approved the program unanimously. oewd also conducted an informational op house, which was noticed to the planning department's noticing list. oewd also [kpao-eultd/] a list of 114 questions and clarifications and a summarized

list in is in your packet. we posted those answers to the website. based on this additional feedback we made additional changes to three of the four amendments that would establish the program. so the first one, the administrative code will be revised in the land use and economic development committee. amend there had. we submitted substitute legislation to the planning, building and code and public works code on april 22nd and there were no revisions made to the police code. as can you see from your packets and at you're requests we included these as legislative elements that are outside of the planning code for your reference. based on the input from additional meetings and list of questions, we made many additional changes to the legislation. you have in your packetment 3-page detailed table of these

changes that is also posted on the website. we would like to work you through a summary and please note anne marie will have additional information after me about the planning, building and code amendments. on the first, we removed the use of the word "insulary." and clarified that city plasas as defined in the proposed sense of the administrative code would be principally permitted when found to be in confirmity with the general plan. we heard several concerns about the potential negative impacts of formula retail in plaza, so we amended the legislation to require conditional use authorization for accessory use defined as formula retail in any approved plazas. the question rose how will you le sure plazas do not contain

inappropriate structures? we have addressed this concern by making amendments to both the administrative code and planning code. in the administrative code we added an open space height and bulk designation requirement, whichly detail in a moment. there the planning code, we added additionly language to clarify that any structures could only occupy limited space if any and will have several new layers to address that intent. to be clear, this is a reduction down from the current zoning levels, which lacks any specific limits. as you heard in the last hearing, there was confusion if this program includes property under the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department. we have amended the legislation to state more clearly that no plaza identified in this program shall be on the property under the jurisdiction of the rec and park department. we also amended the legislation to include additional noticing including 300' mailer to owners

and residents. we had previously not been clear on the legislate that the intent was for any private events that might be approved bit board of supervisors to last no more than one day. so we have r we have clarified the event legislation and any approved events be spread throughout the calendar year. in addition, tot to the changes that i just described, further assignment and clarification, i will explain now. to make sure that a plaza could only be excluded from the requirement to be zoned p, and open space height and bulk designation, if the board of supervisors makes specific findings an osheight and bulk

designation is not viewable for a particular city plaza. we clarified the time limits for any approved private events to include setup and break down time and we added an additional neighborhood groups to the new noticing requirements. that is the 300' mailer. and added requirement that the agreement between both city street and plaza shall describe the maintenance responsibilities. in the march 13th hearing we also heard the commission's request for more context in terms of what types of plazas could be eligible for the program. as a reminder, the program, if adopt wod not include any specific plazas. they would need to be proposed and adopted by the board of supervisors plaza by plaza and could only be eligible for participation pending community process and regulations, including environmental review where required. in response to your requests though we have compiled this

list for illustrative purposes only, none of these spaces are guaranteed that you see here to be adopted into the program. but they are the ones that we have had the most discussion with stakeholders. please note we have listed in column 23 [#2*-/] -- ask column 2 and make it clear that the [kpwhra-uz/] program would not initiate these, but build on current processes. on line 1 there, it emerged during the octavia program aimed at mitigating the impact of the freeway touchdown at market and octavia. that included many years of community input structure. here is the amended list of

outreach that we have done. please note several of the groups listed here including san francisco beautiful have endorsed the plaza program. in conclusion, some of the main program goals and highlights include supporting local stewardship efforts, enhancing coordination and collaboration and continuing to strength san francisco's vibrant communities. thank you. >> thank you. anne marie rodgers again, i will focus on the current version of the planning code amendments and they are as follows col cot the planning code amendments proposed are liped to those uses that are permitted or conditionally permited in p public use districts with a particular

focus on accessory uses, et cetera. the program seeks to enable the city to partner with community stewards to help acted vate and maintain these public plazas. in addition, to the planning code changes the administrative code, public works code and police code are all being amended to address this program. let's talk about what is currently in the planning, building and code? currently accessory ices uses for these stricts -- currently p districts are required to be in confirmity with the general plan and if it's located in a quarter of a mile of restricted neighborhood district, there are additional restrictions. to maintain the policy considerations which are otlined in the general plan and in the report before you. but they would place additional restrictions on accessory use in the p districts and, in fact, there would provide for

the first time the quantifiable limits on the size of accessory uses in the districts. the ordinance would increase restrictions as follows: it would create the absolute maximum cap of 1/3rd of the floor area in relationship to the primary use and further use controls will be tied to the nearest non-residential district to ensure neighborhood compatibility. so if there is a certain concern that is near the p district and addressed inzoic would also be considered here. currently there are no -- as you heard no formula retail controls and would require for all districts and this one is of the concerns that was raised by the public last time. the ordinance would then increase flexibility as follows: the ordinance would change the planning code to permit accessory uses that are not necessarily related to the principal use in the p district this. is intended to allow

uses such as cafe carts. the ordinance amends controls that would allow administrative approval of signs, and ties the sign control to to the nearest district. currently the planning code requires commission approval for all signs in p districts and there are no specific limitations on the location or sizes of signs. and finally the ordinance adds city plazas, which as you have heard b as the principal use in the p district this. change is intended to facilitate the plaza program by bringing clarity to the permitting process. and the department overall finds this ordinance as it has been amended will help to strengthen controls by providing better parameter for size and uses that are permitted within p districts.

it removes unnecessary processes for temporary uses. and signs and it cleans up some kind of confusing sections in the planning code. i know it was confusing for me. so with that, the department's recommendation to the commission is recommend approval to the board and all staff are available, if you have questions. lastly, i guess i should say, i do have some additional comments that were not provided in your packet. one is from paul weber on behalf of the telegraph hill dwellingers and the other is a number of merchants associations and neighborhood associations. >> thank you. is that it for presentations from all departments? >> it is >> opening up for public comment. [ reading speakers' names ] please line up on the screen side of the room. >> commissioners dennis, since the march 13th hearing, the

department, the mayor's office has been very responsive to input from the public. and have made some changes that have greatly improved legislation and taken out of the worst features of it from the point of us of many who responded on mar 13th. most importantly one of the big fears that we had when we first tread this would have permitted the building of structures on public plazas that could have included private for-prove making businesses. because of the literal interpretation of the plaza program and the planning code. however, in order to solve that problem, the department -- i mean the mayor's office has come back with an amendment that requires that the public plazas be zoned as open space; which means that there is basically a height limit of zero, so no permanent

structures could be con structed on the plazas unless the board of supervisors makes a finding that it's not feasible for a specific city plaza. so it's a very limited exception. when it comes to plazas within the public right-of-way, there wouldn't have been any buildings allowed to be con structeding on such property. so that was the biggest change and the other change that made it clear that the -- anything within the recreation park department would not be affected by this was that clarification really helped. the other concern was more minor, but important. was that the limitation of eight closed events per year on

these plazas the question was can they all be concentrated at the best time of year? so the public would be allowed unfettered access to the plaza and no restriction for public access was an important change as well. with those, i would like to thank the mayor's office for making those changes that i think greatly improved the legislation. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is dennis moscovion and i recognize that the changes that were made in the legislation have improved it. however, i want to go back to an earlier testimony that i gave march

13th and my concern and maybe it picks up on something that commissioner sugaya said earlier around 660 3rd street. that once you open the door, sometimes it just simply can't turn back. it's like crossing the rubicon. not only with the planning code and the other three codes and total public plaza package that involves a great deal more than the planning code, and we're taking it and presenting it as a way to activate and energize someplaces that have really been neglected and abandoned and are useful or maybe even worse. that all makes good sense, but it also can be used as a cover and this is the concern. i don't know that you are going to be able to do anything about it, but the concern is constantly shifting areas where the city administration

generally doesn't want to prioritize funding and gradually privatizes it, outsources it, the way we have done with our manufacturing. you know, i don't think it failed because of its own weight. we just allowed people to ship it overseas and they make more money and it's cheaper for them to produce, but we don't have the jobs and i'm a blue-collar worker all my life and i really appreciated that whole realm. so my concern about the legislation and the whole package is the continued step -- continuing this process of gradual use of what they call "partnerships" of outsourcing public space and public services so that the public continues to pay all the same taxes, although some people don't because they are wealthy, and we don't -- but the services actually are in the hands -- are shrunk while the private sector gains. that is my concern. i do appreciate the changes

that were outlined that commissioner antonini worked with the owe office of economic and workforce development and they will help, but i am concerned that certain sections that may be neglected or abandoned and used to enhance the value. that goes back to the point i was originally making that it opens the door that i think we have to be very careful about going through. i at this point don't support the legislation. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. sorry i'm getting over a sickness, but my name is david bill and representing off the grid, as well as activate

mackapin to make sure that the issues that were just brought up are take under advisement and having 501(c)(3) taking on these spaces and going through real estate and oewd to fall into the appropriate categories of benefiting the public and the communities rather than just having privatized opportunity for formula retail and a beacon for these communities, allowing them to connect, create, and share. the things that aren't necessarily happening in these

spaces. so for that point, i am whole-hearted support of this. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioners. matt o'grady the ceo of the san francisco park as license. we have a precedence that we can look at for this plaza program, one that has been running very successfully in san francisco for a number of years of it's called the street parks program, which the park as silence has been running with collaboration with the department of public works for many years. we now have have 125 different sites scattered across the city that are dpw properties all adopted by neighbors of the properties and converted from dead-end streets, steep hillsides and medians and other leftover bits and pieces of our street grid and converted into parks and open spaces and gardens and other recreational opportunities. all of these driven by volunteers and neighbors who

live in those neighbors. the result has been a reduction in costs for the city for the maintenance of those sites, clean-up of little wastelands that would otherwise be used nefarious activities and rather enhance life and quality in the neighborhoods. we encourage moving forward with the program. thank you. >> thank you. let me call a number of other speaker names. [ reading speakers' names ] >> it's okay i butted in. good afternoon, commissioners my name is lynn valenti and

program director of people in plazas, free concert series and i have been doing this for 21 years. we use small musical concerts to activate public plazas all over san francisco, both privately-owned spaces and city-owned public spaces. in my 21-year career and in the beginning i have been brought to tears having to go through all kind of hoops to do a small event in a public space free for the community. i have produced 3,000 small eventeds in san francisco plaza including transamerica park, u.n. plaza. i live across from street the from proposed plaza that will open this summer. this plaza is in mitigation and

this amenity- and a couple of others will really turnaround our neighborhood. i have been work on this for ten years. this program is needed to run and manage new and old open spaces. it cut down the permit process for community groups and other activators including 501(c)(3)s, non-profits, and because of this, more groups will engage with the community, if the process can be simplified. >> good afternoon planning commissioners i'm karen flood the executive director of the union square business improvement district and represent over 500 property owners in and around a 27-block

area of union square and sneak favor of this legislation. my understanding of this legislation it's really an enabling legislation, allowing different non-profit and community groups and individuals to step up and submit proposals to be stewards of certain plazas. and very similar to a friends of program, friends of mccleran park or what have you and i see great potential across the city not only in our district for this program. we have been working very close with my oewd on this legislation over the past couple of years and i think maybe a good example, as to why we need this legislation is possibly holiday plaza as you know many ways the gateway to san francisco and certainly coming to the airport off bart or what have you, it's often people's first impression of san francisco and it's certainly an underutilized space. we could do a lot to improve that area. currently there are three different city jurisdictions

that oversee that plaza and so as lynn it said, when you want to apply for a permit, it's quite confusing and deters people from activating that space and really making it more inviting. with a stewardship you might have one group that is kind of the main point person and that is always better when you are trying to manage a space and make sure that it's well-maintained, clean, and activated. there is a community process and certainly needs to be community outreach and if we applied as a steward for holliday were any community that we have any men's wearhousing it iply understanding is that it goes before the board of supervisors. thank you.

>> paul weber and i have questions on process. the way the mechanics of creating a steward, which basically will be the enterprise that will operate these plazas is to submit -- to issue an rfp and that process apparently follows possibly some fairly serious negotiation between a possible steward or manager and the city. and under the legislation, once that concept has been created,

the city puts out an rfp. but the legislation does not require a hearing unless two or more bidders show up and then the only question to be decided at the hearing is which among the bidders is the best bidder? it doesn't appear to address the question of the wisdom of the proposal in the first place. this we think is something that the businesses and the neighbors and the residents of the area ought to have a say in. so we would propose and i'm happy to work with the staff, who have been very cooperative with me and providing me information. we would propose that there be a gestation period after the rrp before a hearing and then a hearing be held followed by an award, if that is the process.

secondly, on the last versions of the legislation, which i have seen, and i may be a version behind based upon something robin said; that is the notice provisions. in the versions that i have, there is a mailed notice to property owners. and there are posted to certain property owners within a radius. and there are certain posted notices, but the legislation as such does not provide for notice to residents or of equal importance, the businesses in the area. both of those groups may be impacted by this legislationing. finally, the provision for prohibiting of adding a property from parks and recreation is fine as far as it goes and should provide for no amendment without citywide voter approval. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is

amanda cogen and i'm part of the valencia mccoppin neighborhood group and homeowner on stevenson street, right around the corner from mccoppin hub and on the executive committee of literary festival which has been operating in san francisco successfully for 15 years. one of the things that we have done is the event called the literary reasons and to let the neighbors know that we have readings in the alley and we have done a really good job working with neighbors to make sure that the event pleases the masses. it's been really successful and we have upward of 200 people in the alley and i have never had an issue. as a homeowner, around the

corner from mccoppin hub, i really love the plaza idea. i have met with robin and been to many meetings to hear about it and mccoppin hub is a venue we would love to use during the crawl, since we start at market street and go down valencia and through 24th street. so i whole-heartedly support this program, and i also appreciate having gone through the very complicated permitting process every year through sfmta and dpw and the entertainment commission and supervisor campos' office, i really appreciate the streamlining that is happening with the permitting process and the fact that i will be able to work with just one person, who is the steward. and hopefully, get our event approved for that space. lastly, i will just say since i am a new homeowner in the area and bringing a child into the neighborhood, i really appreciate activating the space. i think david bill did a great

job this last year. right now i walk by the space and it's basically blighted with people who -- i understand there is not enough housing for homelessness in the city and i'm compassat to that, but as a homeowner in the neighborhood i appreciate seeing dead space activated and i'm in full support of this. thank you. >> hello commissioners. thank you for having this meeting. -- i'm the policy manager for san francisco beautiful and i'm here on behalf of san francisco beautiful to support the plaza programs. we think that the (applause) program will help activate the public realm by empowering the community and stakeholders to studthe long-term care. and will create a