item two would require conditional use authorization on c-3 s districts and cm districts for enclosed parcel delivery districts. we recommend because this woulde consistent with the intent for a zoning districts. -- for a zoning districts. this would require a conditional use authorization to c3s and cm district. the department recommends approval because the changes consistent with the zoning districts. item four, prohibit storage yards for commercial vehicles or trucks in cm or c3s the streets. the department recommends this be allowed because the use is consistent with the intent of the district. that is different from what is proposed in the legislation. item five deals with automobile service stations, often known as gas stations.

we would exempt real service stations that are located on primary transit streets or citywide pedestrian networks streets from the requirements outlined in section 228 which limits the conversion of gas stations before -- limits the conversion of gas stations. before i spoke to, i passed out a map. -- to you, i passed out a map. the next topic is limited corner commercial uses. there are two changes that are proposed under this legislation. the first would increase the distance these uses could be located from the corner. currently, it is 50 feet. the legislation would increase that to 100 feet. it would also increase the allowable use size to 2500 square feet. the supervisor's office does agree with our recommendation which is to limit it to what it

is that there would like to do more community outreach in the future and go forth with us. they -- i am sorry. >>i is that out of the legislation? >> it is in the legislation still. they may move forward with it only if they can sell the community more. and the second change would require conditional use authorization in order to convert a dwelling unit to an lccu. conditions are required to be reviewed under section 317. the department feels this requirement is duplicated and unnecessary. we are recommending that change not be added. the next topic on your executive summary is accessory uses. the first item would include the

rc zoning district and the excess reuse control foresee, -- for c, and m. these are commercial district. the second item would remove specific numerical restrictions for accessory uses such as limits on hp and set performance based restrictions, then no noise, vibration, or unhealthful emissions beyond the premises in c and rc districts. the legislation would increase to one third the square footage that they could occupy. it would remove any limit on the number of employees and accessory use -- that it could have. and permits accessories.

the next topic is nonconforming usage. the first item deals with non conforming usage in a neighborhood commercial districts. currently, these uses can be changed to another use that is conditionally permitted in the district without conditional use authorization. the proposed legislation would require conditional use authorization if a non conforming use -- nonconforming use were to [inaudible] it brings consistency to how these uses are entitled in commercial districts. the second deals with nonconforming uses in r districts. they're subject to termination, can -- without regard to dwelling density or of street parking. the legislation proposes any nonconforming use can be

converted to an unspecified number of dwellings. we're going from one housing unit in r districts to -- our districts to district 4 that may be permitted. the department is concerned the but deflation remove the one unit limitation in place and the lack of review for group housing. we're recommending only one unit be allowed as of right now and group housing be eliminated from this section. the third item deals with surface parking lots in the c3 district. the legislation would remove the provision in the code that allows surface parking lots in c3 districts to operate in perpetuity. the department supports this change because it is consistent with the downtown plan in the general plan. we are rec meinecke -- recommending clarifying language.

i would like to point out that clarifying language in my executive summary is not t-- is correct when i list the recommendations. it spells out the use has to terminate within five years from this ordinance being adopted, not immediately. the next session is the washington broadway sud. another thing i would like to point out that was brought to my attention yesterday, the map included in your packet for the washington-bred -- broadway sud has an error. legislation would not extend beyond columbus. anything beyond columbus that goes into chinatown, that would not be part of the washington- broadway sud. that makes item no. 2 in the staff report a moot point. we're concerned about wholesaling being allowed in

residential district since the sud delong deryk stands into residential district. we're fine with keeping that -- sud extends into residential districts. item four would make surface parking lots nonconforming uses within the washington-broadway sud, otherwise there would have to seek a temporary use permit. the department recommends this provision be removed from the legislation. last week under the section stat -- they are allowed to be waived in the waterfront. their character and location are similar and they should be subject -- able to take advantage of the waiver under

section 161. finally we have the van ness sud. exempting affordable housing. they intended to strike this from the legislation so we can go ahead and ignore that. it will not be discussed. the second item removes the specifics in provisions from the van ness use district from the planning code and zoning map. this area would now be controlled by the provisions in section -- in se-- section 606. it would reduce the permitted height of projecting signs from 24 feett to 14 feet. the third and final item removes the one to one parking ratio on the ben s. -- on van ness ave. i do have to point out that

there is a provision in the city's general plan that calls for a one to one parking along van ness ave. while this change is not consistent with that specific provision in the general plan, the department feels it is consistent on balance with the overall general plan and the city's transit first policy. with that, i'm available for questions. thank you. thank ycommissioner wu: thank y. public comment on this item? kraska afternoon. i'm a resident of district 2. supervisor mark farrell is my supervisor. i have been working with his office and the planner regarding this legislation as it impacts

the park and i read all these pages, 300 + pages and i have gotten most of my issues regarding jordan park's concerns addressed. i am putting on my other hat. i am a member of the japantown organizing committee and we had a meeting and i invited -- asked planning to please explain some of these things to the japantown team. after going through a lot of trying to get people to show up, i was told that tom is the expert on this. he is the only one who showed up to help the japantown organizing committee. he was very helpful on some of the questions we had. one of the things you're discussing today is the limited corner commercial use and in japantown, i think the legislation reads currently, it is up to 1200 square feet with a bump of 1200 square feet would would be the old version, a total of 2400 square feet. the proposed is a base of 2500

and if you have to corners within one block, you can bump up an additional 1200 which means a maximum for building with two corners on the same block as 3750 or whatever the mouth is. -- math is. it might be a concern for existing businesses. maybe the size might affect current businesses depending on what might move in. that is an issue that still needs to be discussed. i was looking for some planning department person to help the organizing committee. i hope that could be done soon because i guess now the calendar has changed. the confusion in the beginning was we were given different dates for these phases and what would be discussed in what meeting. that is why i stayed until now because i was not sure if i should stay.

i left a couple of times and came back. with all the confusion and would hope you keep this comment open. i agree with planning department's recommendation to not go ahead and close, -- comment in the r district. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. our next speakers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we represent priority parking which operates various surface parking lots in the downtown area. we want to remind you that priority parking strongly

objects to the proposed elimination of a longstanding grandfathering. there appears to be an assumption operators would have no problem obtaining permits. there is no guarantee of that. please do not disregard the cumbersome appeals process. we have appealed. we respectfully request that you recommend the grandfathering provision remain in place. market conditions should dictate when it is appropriate for these lots to be developed in the future. at a minyou accept staff recommendation that the temporary period extended to five years. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. nicks speakers. -- next speakers. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. executive director of global cities here to speak in favor of the legislation. i wanted to speak about the accessory in c districts. we heard about the restaurant controls and we can create a great environment for locally owned small businesses. we worked with with -- with kate and she could not be here today. she could have spoken for another three minutes and have been much more eloquent than i. the intent was to look at businesses that in these next use -- makes use differences, businesses are mixing uses. they have an office and retail use together in the same space. all those uses are principally permitted in most of these districts. by eliminating this one quarter accessory, you put a crimp on those businesses growing and changing. these could be the superstar

businesses of tomorrow. if they want to have a wholesale, they want to start selling to other businesses, that is a production use or wholesale use, that might take additional space. they could grow and thrive in the city and giving them more room i think in the code was the intent of this ordinance, to help those unique types of businesses grow. i know a lot of neighborhood commercial districts are interested in this. the small production alongside a retail use. this is an attempt to bring into those c district another increment of flexibility to allow those uses to thrive. we looked at and other performance measures. no one is going to go out and measure the horsepower of a machine. enforcement is very complete driven. the idea of putting in -- that is responsive to the with the planning department does

enforcement and addresses the impact that these businesses could have on neighbors rather than limit some hp which ends of being kind of arbitrary. i wanted to talk about the public sunset. the parking sunset, something we are supportive to. livable city and the building trades are together in this one. this is very clearly within the intent of the general plan and if you'll look at what the general plan says about parking lot, this is a surfer slot, that they are a blight and these are the sites where we should be putting housing. we think the soft nudge to these property owners to every five years and we agree with the five-year extension look at these properties and station in develop these or keep these as surface lots? it will get these sites into the uses the downtown plan called for. you can build parking, that is permitted. we think this nudges us in the

right direction. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. >> good afternoon, i wanted to speak out in support of the recommendation for the change in the automotive uses for the c2 district. as it would be, it was prohibiting surface parking lots. the change is to allow for surface parking lots to be grandfathered that are already there. the -- since we have the triangle parking lot which made -- you may be familiar with, that is services -- servicing many historical restaurants and many of those businesses, success is tied to that parking lot. it is important that grandfather clause stay in place and the

existing parking lots are able to continue without having to go through the conditional use authorization process. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. is there any further public comment? >> sue hester, i have various comments. here is a map -- can you see it? here is a map of cm, these are cm lots. this was in 2008. this used to be called the eastern neighborhood and basically they were all abolished. this is the lot on courtland avenue. there are orphan lots on mission street. this was not thought out. let' puts put them to cm.

mission street muni interference. this legislation was drafted without a map of the zone. i know where c2 is, the base of telegraph hill. everything -- it is northern and eastern waterfront. all the parcels were created in 1963 or so. they have not been rezoned cents. it is the still -- stalest zong. -- zone. nothing else should be put there because it slows down -- i have been dealing with this one for. i have all my e-mails on this. that one, get rid of it. a couple of other things. i do not agree with changing --

this is on page four. were you are changing housing conversion -- where you are changing housing conversion from c to d. c sets stands, requires a staff report and even though the current staff reports received tend to be pathetic, there are standards and one of these days, you might actually apply them. a d, no. when you are losing housing, i do not think it is a good idea to go to a d.r. and put the burden on the committee to deal with it. the burden should be on staff and the developer to set out the standards that should be applied in a cu. i do not agree -- i do not understand, pulling the number of a hat and this is page five.

changing the area from one- fourth to one-third. why? tell me what it is, the policy underlying that. one gets to be one-third, it gets to be substantial. the last time we had pitched battles on accessory uses was in the 1990's. when it was the volume of live and worth that was constrained by this world. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. last time we discussed this, we took them by topic area. was that a useful way to discuss what would you like to make your comments? >> i just have a few. commissioner miguel: was there any comment regarding

the cm comment? >> thank you. i was nervous about entering into my own interpretation. what the legislation does is make the -- make them more restrictive. the whole point of that and more power to the planning staff and planning commission if they want to look at whether cm should exist in the code. we did not want to go into that and we would get into neighborhood plan work. mid market was looking at cm but they went away. what the control changes are about is making them more similar to the c3t. they may get more parental control from the controls that are next to them.

that is all that is about. i hope that -- sorry that we were not able to clarify and communicate that before the meeting. commissioner antonini: thank you. i-- commissioner miguel: thank you. this was split into sections as we requested. it is -- i hope it has made it easier for supervisor chu's staff as well as the -- the department. i like the recommendation on the five rather than two-year, and on grandfathering, i believe it should come as a cu before us and i do not want to see that element -- eliminated from the legislature. i am willing to move this legislation with staff recommendations.

>> i second. commissioner wu: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: there are some parts that have a long way to go. let's start with the simple ones. most of staff -- what staff recommended sounds fine. it -- i noted this group housing situation in these conversions were you limit it to convert to one unit which could be a huge everett issue and we have had a few big arguments over those -- huge neighborhood issue and we have had a few big arguments over that. we have to watch that one. on our surface parking which gets confusing, what we're saying is under the staff recommendation, we're going to grandfather existing surface parking lots, they can obtain the temporary use permit for five years and they have to get a cu, is that correct?

>> hannity's come out there aret -- yes. there are two cu uses. we recommend they become conditional uses. that -- the new ones can come in but only with conditional use. under the c3, the surface parking lots are nonconforming uses. what the legislation does is it takes out the line that says they can operate in perpetuity. by taking that out, these businesses need to close within five years of the date of this legislation. after that five years, they can come back every two years as it is written now to get a temporary use permit, staff is recommending to raise that to five years. >> we talked about that. that is more realistic. if they still are in place, it is cumbersome to come back every two years, five years -- obviously if something better

comes up, i think it sounds to me like what staff is recommending is the best way to go, unless i heard otherwise from their representatives that would be acceptable. you may want to comment on that. as far as what is being proposed here on this part of it. >> i will quickly reiterate and our preference would be that the grandfathering provision that was reached -- that compromise was reached when the downtown plan was passed, that provision remain in the code but if they were to be eliminated, i would like to see the five-year time period. commissioner miguel: with the use permit for existing. >> if the commission recommends eliminating the grandfathering, consistent with the legislation, there would be the cu requirement. five years is more reasonable

than two. commissioner miguel: the biggest one for me that we have not discussed much is the van ness special use district, a residential parking. when understanding is right now it is a requirement that -- might understanding is right now is a requirement -- there is a requirement for one to one parking. let's just strike the requirement. a builder could come in with no parking presumably or they could come in with limited number to try to make it into the parking that is in place in the adjacent district which is onete to four. correct me if i am wrong. the only cu opportunity would be to go to one to two. this would make many projects infeasible. >> they have to have one to one

on van ness. >it is 150% of the amount would be accessories. if we did one to four that would be one to two. commissioner miguel: thank you for comments. i do not think this is a modification i can support. it does not make a lot of sense. i have heard from a number of people who say we need to get rid of the one to one requirement because we want to develop some of the existing buildings or perhaps new buildings, to be able to build a lot of denture housing and not have to deal with the cost of -- denser housing and not have to deal with the cost. a number of buildings would be proposed to existing buildings or a newly constructed -- or newly constructed buildings. it should be something that is optional. van ness is a long ways from having an office near there and knowing how long it takes to

get there by public transportation, it is a lot different from any place else. i do not really think it is that transit-rich and even if it were, a lot of people would prefer to have their car parked somewhere. that is the problem i have with this and that kills the whole legislation for me if it is not changed. the other thing is pipeline. we did not -- can i get an answer on pipeline? we have a lot of projects that we have applied for or approved, some were under construction. one would assume that does not get change. as far as the parking, if there is a project that is in the pipeline, does that mean they can keep their one-to-one if that is what they choose to have? >> we do agree with the grandfathering provision. planning staff has recommended that be if you have planning commission approval but have not received your permits, you have three years. we have been in discussion with developers to push that