brought forward. i ask you to either reject this or continued it until there is a chance to review the proposed project that calls for this at rezoning. thank you. p.u.d.s'. we've done this quite

protectly. for me given the location of this lot what is the appropriate use of this lot? does this current zoning which is lesser density makes sense. it sounds like from reading through the code and the different even though housing would be permitted in the current zoning, you can actually build more housing with the nced zoning which is ironic because you think the r zoning would support more housing. given the location next to it, very tall housing development, you know, it seems to me that this lot is a challenging lot for a lot of reasons in that regard and it would make a lot of sense for there to be -- this lot to be rezoned as ncd because of the location and the fact that across the street there's a lingerie and there

are also commercial as well. so given the proximity to the n.c.d. and the location it seems to fle that standpoint looking at the larger n.c.d., in general that would seem a very good use for that lot. in terms of the project, any project that would come forward would go through all this typical project approval, meaning somebody could have whatever ideas that we want because we would rezone this lot and the project would be our preferred project or the project that would ultimately be approved. i'm not as concerned from that level because at this point all we're doing is looking at the best and highest use for this particular land and actually today we're only looking at initiating the zoning and maybe the woman with the housing authority could talk very generally about the types of proposals or potential thoughts that people have expressed to them. tult matly, their job is to try

to raise money to generate more housing that the public housing that the city can provide and if this helps them to do that, it still doesn't guarantee the potential sponsor any money at the end of the day but at least in short-term it helps the city advance forward and to me it seems like a very good land use given the proximity of the sight into the n.c.d. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: do you know the difference how many unit could be placed on this sight? >> it allows one unit per 800 square feet. and the n.c.d. allows 600 feet. and r.m.-1 allows for one unit regardless of the unit. president miguel: commissioner

antonini? commissioner antonini: i realized this was only an initiation and that answers some of my concerns and it appears as if this is going to be sold will be able to use the funds for other redevelopment projects because arkt tech churlly while the towers serve a very good purpose, architecturally they're probably not our best product. i was hoping that we wouldn't see the same. this sounds like it may be commercial. it may be residential. i'm not really sure. but it sounds like the process is going to allow us to and we're only initiating the zoning change. i would hope that as we move forward, we will have more information before we actually approve the zoning change as to some ideas about what might be built there. it may be just a sale. there may not be a project yet. i don't really know. i'd like to know a little bit

when we goat that point. president miguel: commissioner moore? commisioner moore: this is one of those types of lots where one would require guidelines which particularly address turning off a corner and turning a way to transition into the next zoning. that is the one thing i would be interested in. and you also in this corner have a very difficult bus stop which is very crowded, heavily used and that bus stop really doesn't look. so this would affect frontage of the building on the rezoned lot. but i think if we're moving and supporting the rezoning we could spend a lot of attention to areas that is a drenstial, institutional neighborhood and that sensitivity needs to be very clearly shown to us before we move ahead with visualizing

of the building or anything else. >> if i may, just to quickly respond to commissioner sugaya's comment, the 40 square feet area, 40 feet would be allowed in up ther fillmore, n.c.d. would be seven years. >> perhaps later could we have some information on the -- we have that number now but like the height and that kind of stuff. >> the height is not being reclassified so it would stay at a 40-foot height limit. president miguel: the resslution itself when you read it -- resolution its it provides the zoning math amendment. although i fully understand his concerns in this regard. it will be a public hearing

regarding it as it should be i hope although there's no way of knowing that the redevelopment agency can push any poe tennesseetial developer to participate but most certainly considering the actual lot itself, commissioner moore's remarks regarding it as well, commissioner sugaya's informational requests, it's going to be snag will take a good deal of public and commission consideration as to what ends up there. commissioner and any any? commissioner antonini: initiate. >> second. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. commissioner olague? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye.

so moved commissioners that resolution gets developed unanimously. we'll return to the regular calendar for item 9 case number 2010-.05 t an ordinance demanding planning code sections 1824 various code inspections between 124 and 249 to create comprehensive and street frontage controls. >> good afternoon, supervisors. emily rorges. this piece of legislation provides -- it's a very complicated piece of legislation. we were before you last month with part of it and we ask for a continuum so we could continue to work with the project sponsor and the legislative sponsor and the representatives. the department has had what we think were very successful meetings to better understand their intent and we've got some modification that we think will

improve the legislation before you. stuff like that say that last month you heard requests for more community engage yt on this legislation and this is something that you may want to request from the supervisor as our time and resource for review of legislation restricted unless there are budget changes, the department is pretty limited to what we can do. we do provide a complete policy review. we rely on the elected officials to perform additional outreach to ensure that they have the consensus tpwhaling they need for this policy change. so the supervisors aide is going to be here. maybe i'll just start to walk you through a little bit of the legislation. and what i think is probably required here is we actually walk through section by section. but i'll rely on the commissioners to guide me. if that's too tedious for you,

i'll be happy -- is that teed too teedses you? let me know what you think -- president miguel: perhaps more important -- highlights. >> more important highlights. i'm looking at the table and the report goes through and describes a way each way the section it would be. i think many of these modifications the project sponsor agrees with us on and they'll be happy to incorporate into the legislation. the section 144 changes to treatment of the ground stories for certain art districts and in this one they're recommending five different changes and we're largely agreeing with the recommended changes. however we are recommending that they increase the minimum with the garage door with 10

feet. we feel that if you're going 1/3 with a lot standard that that might result for a requirement of your garage being no bigger than 8.33 and that seemed to be a very small garage especially since they are in increments on the fooment we're recommending that a garage be no less than 10 feet. let's see. moving on, i think the biggest point of current disagreement is what's called out houses. you've heard mr. o duel explain his concern over snout houses. however after spending a lot of time looking at this, we feel that the snout garages are not really a threat to to it. we have many concerns that would address that. the examples that you saw at last month's hearing were

largely constructed before the current regulation for a front back setback the residential design guidelines that we currently have and the notification. these address the issue. the legislation as currently written does not seem to also address the intended concern. as drafted the proposal would not permit the snow house massing. it couldn't contain a garage. but it could contain other uses. the proposal could clean up the language because right now we feel it would be hard to build with. the department feels that there are some cases, in fact, where having a garage in front of the primary facade may be appropriate. i have some examples of snout houses which are more in character. i've got a little source book,

thank you. more in character with the neighborhood. so here is a garage that is in front of the house a little bit. and on the side, you can see the staircase using this area in front of the primary facade to get to the garage. i think one of the -- we've got several examples of that same situation where you have staircases going in front of the facade and garage are also in front of the facade. so it's the legislation if it were adopted the way it's before you, the garages would be nonconforming issues and we feel we can address any lingering of the use of a snout

house. we're concerned that it would limit your discretion and our discretion. we feel it would not be allowed as it stands. so that's our stand on snout houses. there's many things that i think we've reached agreement. since the project sponsor is not here and supervisor mercury is not here, can you present the areas where you did not agree with the recommendation? >> we worked with supervisor on the legislation and having worked a lot with department staff and also checking in with

the neighborhoods association just to understand if we're making any legislation that's consistent. these are things that we can live with. they've either improved the legislation or are things that, you know, are just kind of more technical in terms of, you know, the way the planning department likes to do business. i'd say ms. rogers got it right in terms of 144 and 145.1 the snout garage controls are once when i checked back in we both kind of feel, well, a it's important, and brchings not adequately controlled as it is. i can talk more on public comment. great. >> i would mention one of the big ideas from our recommendation where there are several instance where is the supervisor was allowing things to be waived on the process that's less of a conditional use. in all instances we are

recommending that we use 307-h which would allow the zoning administrator to do an exception. it's an exception that's limited to certain areas. so we would make an amendment to 307-h and that's currently not in the legislation before you. but we think this would allow for appropriate review but not an excessively burdensome review. there are generally things such as our allowing less parking that the commission has supported and actions that have been before you. there are generally things that the zoning administrator also has been approving some variances so we felt that that expedited measure would be appropriate. president miguel: thank you. >> i would be happy to go through any more questions that you have. thank you. president miguel: thank you.

public comment? >> tom, executive director of living city. as we said we've been work k hard with your staff to try and make this work. i think actually we've made a terrific amount of progress. to open it up as a city and as a department we've done a lot of work to up grade or street frontage standards. alan jacobs talked about san francisco's mean streak. ben grant's article, i think it's great. i didn't give you the "dead trees" thing. but i think you should read it. the other part is how the buildings meet the streets. you can have lovely streetscaping and landscaping and fancily materials and so on but if the buildings are really harsh and hostile and cold, you're not going have a great

street. i think the two ordinances together one that was recommended by the commission in play, that was really looking at districts with the mixed uses. this one was aimed at residential to compliment the work on the street. if you look at all the examples that were shown, think about what those houses looked before. has a garage tucked under one side and then the steps. virtually every one of those houses, i'd like to get the before picture, had steps coming down to the street. tucking the garage under the housekeeping that front step would have been much more in character with the neighborhood than the solution that's proposed. i don't love any of thasm and i don't thip it's actually very good. and i think the department sometimes worries a little too much with the exceptions rather than setting rules to our worlds. in the course of our discussion and it really never made sbite the staff report.

i think we talked more about how do we want to control this? what's appropriate? 136-c only allows the snout houses in the setback. i think we can write planning controls that make sense and that addresses all the concerns, the extraordinary circumstances -- we already addressed a few, the sloping locksings the short locks -- locks, the short locks, loss of housing, let's figure out what the exceptions might be. let's control these things. they're not in character anyway. wherever they're done, they really do diminish the character that they're in and the neighborhood that they're in. rather than just reject your recommendations, let's keep working until there's something mutually acceptable between staff and the project sponsor. i think we can all get to something that's going be a real asset to the city. it's been actual lay great conversation about something

that's so important. so i think we ke get there if you instruct us to get there rather than instruct your staff to reject it. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commisioner moore: this is a major step in the right direction. it ties so much of the discussion we had earlier for the difficulty i had is -- it's really the physical example and illustration of what it is and what it would billion which makes it much, much easier to use. i don't think i'm the one thing that i think would be easier than anybody. it has to be used in order to ultimately become a -- which is difficult to understand. small diagrams, plan section or whatever added to this would make it a beautiful piece. regarding the snout garages i would hope that you would not

just leave this to the zoning administrators but that you would take some additional time and find agreeable language that they have a lot of back and forth that indicates this is a document of dialogue of compromise. i can support all of this. but i ask that you not toss one thing out, carry it through, address the snout garage and additional work with the supervisor and take it and make it part of a document as an addendum or whatever. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i generally would be supportive on staff recommendations on these items, the first of which the garage with the 10 feet sounds reasonable. and there's no problem there. on the snout house, yeah, i actually did send an e-mail to -- about a relative in the east

bay. everyone interested in garage. very trusting because they have nothing of advantage in their garage. at my point, you need a little flex nlt on this because what an actual snout house is a matter of interpretation and i think by allowing this to be looked at by us or by staff in individual instances make sense but we actually want to discourage that from being a standard but certainly there may be those examples that are pointed out and others that might be an appropriate solution because i for one don't want to make it more difficult for people to add appropriate out house. and the other point i have, if you look at section 39-l-25, 24, 25 and it deals with this north of market s.u.d. and i think it's a little too

sperving. what it's doing is relieving the minimum parking requirements. i think that's fine. if they want parking, they can do it. but they don't have to satisfy the minimum. it talks just in the existing lone moderate income stock and if someone was converting something they would say this doesn't apply to us. basically the language should be changed to say existing housing stock preserved buildings of architectural historical. it makes it broader because what it is is that's restrictive and this minimum, this elimination of the minimum would only apply to that that's defined as low and moderate income. so staff could look at that. and it applies to that. and basically everything else looks pretty good. president miguel: commissioner olague? oig we're going to move to

approve with the modification and commissioner moore mentioned the garages. commisioner moore: my suggestion was not to make it a zoning but ask that the supervisor continue to work with staff and the writing of the amended street frontage ordinance here and work it out. create additional language and make it part of the ordinance rather than keeping it as a zoning -- well, i think the issue's too important. i it it should be resolved within one settlement. >> that's my motion. president miguel: can i make a comment -- just a question for staff on that. so that allows, of course the supervisor will come out of discussions with staff but it does allow some flex nlt of interpretation? is that what we're saying here? >> that's what i heard the commission request.

any question that you forward obviously -- >> all right. >> and we'd be happy upon the commission's directions work forward and have a better articulation of this outhouse garage. >> and staff will look at the passageway. >> can you explain that a little bit. president miguel: what it is, i have to find the section again. basically what it does is it talks specifically conserve and upgrade existing low and moderate income housing stock where there could be instances in the market s.u.d. which includes market rate housing or other housing and an owner of that could say, wait a minute, you're elimination of the minimum only applies defined as low and moderate. it's just too restrictive. i doubt that would happen. but you never know, somebody might say, wait a minute. you know, i do need this

minimum or this minimum still applies. so it makes it broader. commissioner moore? any additional -- i went through this voluminous material and i also greatly appreciate the format of the way it's written in the department suggesting when this is done. it makes it a lot easier for us than trying to regroup the actual legislation itself without realizing totally what's happening. so i greatly appreciate that. i fully agree with working out the snow house garage situation -- snout house garage situation. driving around the city and of course knowing from before but after this came more to my

attention, my eye kept going to various it rations and -- and there has to be hundreds of different it rations of it. some of which worked. many of which do not work. and one can see the reasons why they were done. sometimes it's cause. sometimes it's expedience si. but i appreciate the fact that the motions in the department will try to work this out in a little better wathan it's currently there. as far as the garage door with is concerned, it actually caused me to check the size of my own garage door to make sure what i'm talking about. it is eight feet, by the way, on a hill and it still works. so it can be done without a problem. commissioner antonini: i'm reading page 44 and it deals

with this situation of an insulation of a garage, not to significantly decrease the live blingt of the dwelling unit and it then it talks about the evictions during the past 10 years. irthink that is already law in areas. is this just reiterating what's already there? i think we had that discussion about a year ago and i believe that's passed. >> yes, you're correct. the only thing that they're considering is the things in italics. >> this is just a statement that's already there. it's not an addition. >> ok. >> i heard a motion, but i didn't hear a second. oh, thank you. on that motion to approve as modified with modifications, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner olague?

>> aye. >> commissioner president miguel? >> aye. that motion passes unanimously. why don't we take a 10-minute break. -- break?