required in the ratio of one parking space for every 44 minutes. -- every four dorm units. the proposed legislation proposes to institute a 1 space per 4 unit requirements in all rc district. supervisor chu sent a letter to the commission in february the proposed amending the ordinance to remove the minimum parking requirements in the rc districts and instituting a .75 space per parking maximum. the number is what is currently permitted, 150% of the minimum. no absolute parking maximum was provided by supervisor chu. the commission they want to

propose a maximum parking for the rc districts if they decide to take this route, such as 0.75 or 1-to-1, which is what other mixed use districts have. for the van ness area and at rc- 3 district, supervisor chu proposes eliminating minimum parking requirements as well, allowing of 2.5 parking spaces per unit with a maximum of 0.75 with a conditional use. it proposes the elimination of minimum parking requirements as proposed by supervisor chu. the proposed change is consistent with parking requirements and other trends in other districts even with a significantly lower densities. the next item deals with parking in north beach, broadway, and chinatown. parking requirements for non- residential uses in broadway and north beach neighborhood and commercial districts and the

mixed used districts are regulated by the minimum parking controls on cable 151. -- on table 151. they waive non-residential parking requirements except in the rare case with over 20,000 square feet in the chinatown community business district. we discussed this in phase two. a recent ordinance placed the parking requirements for residents with maximum limits but did not make conforming limits to residential uses. this ordinance would address that. the proposed legislation would remove minimum parking requirements for non-residential uses in these districts. maximum parking requirements for non-residential uses would be added in table section 151.1. these changes would be consistent with the parking requirements in other transit-

oriented districts in san francisco and the policies of the general plan. that ends the parking section. any questions? commissioner antonini: first, on the last one, north beach, chinatown, you say they are consistent. this is non-residential. at the present time, there are some requirements for non- residential parking in those areas. >> there are minimum parking requirements. commissioner antonini: that is based on square footage? >> it depends on the use, but generally, yes. it is being replaced by maximum parking controls, which it depends on the use. section 151.1, it goes over the uses and tells you the minimum and maximum. commissioner antonini: staff feels that was consistent with what we have in other areas, densely populated retail areas such as downtown? >> yes.

commissioner antonini: i do not have as much a problem about that. i am concerned about the van ness corridor. also, the cr districts, which were called out earlier. van ness has the van ness sud. as we heard with the hearing with cal pacific, there is three times the amount of residential- to-commercial. therefore, it is sometimes difficult to make topencil out. i am not saying that most of the development might be against having an interest in having less parking. there may be situations along the van ness corridor where some of the buildings would be residential, for sale, or even for rent, that would be of a scope that, to make this thing

work, they would need to have 1- to-1 parking, if it were a high and tight building. i think having a maximum is not a good idea. at least you would have an allowance that there was no minimum. basically, those with projects could choose. we are making all of the incentives in the rest of this legislation to incentivize the production of more housing, denser housing, f.a.r. changes, all of the things that are being done. there might be instances where someone would want to build a residential building. to make it work, they would be required to have that. i would favor allowing up to 1- to-1 or, at the very least, allow a c.u. in the van ness corridor to go 1-to-1.

probably no should be applied to the cr districts, but they already have a low ratio. >> that is correct. .25. commissioner antonini: you have quite a change here. i am not sure if it is as important as those. having the flexibility to allow for those instances where more parking would be necessary, it keeps you from problems in the future. you cannot foresee the future and there is a good possibility that there may be some projects that would not be built if they were not allowed enough parking. president fong: any other questions on this portion? >> ok. the next one is pretty short. it is the transportation management plan. there is only one item. currently, section 163 requires

property owners to require on- site transportation service and management plans when they construct a new building or there is a conversion of an existing building in the c-3 eastern neighborhoods and south of market mixed use district. it would change it to implement the c-2 districts and other mixed used district. -- mixed use districts. the next section is powers of the va. it would allow him to waive dwelling unit requirements consistent with is currently up 42 waive requirements for article 10 buildings. for article 10 and 11 buildings thought it would permit him to allow open space to be credited

toward the residential open space requirements. the proposed change reduces the need for variances with non- conforming use when converting a residential use. currently, converting requires open space and exposure. these are routinely granted but they add cost and process to the developer. the hpc has reviewed this and they do support it. the second item will allow the zoning administrator to reduce or waive required parking or loading for projects when the only feasible street frontage is located on the projected pedestrian cycling or transit- oriented street front. i have included maps in your case packet. were the only available street

is located at a transit stop. the legislation as a provision that would allow the zoning administrator to waive the parking requirements with the recommendation from the department of public works, bureau of urban forestry, or the recommendation of a certified arborist. those are the only items in that section. any questions? ok. the next section deals with van ness ave. these have code changes and map changes. the first item is the special sign district. currently, van ness has sign controls that were adopted that allow for larger and taller signs. the proposed legislation would eliminate the van ness sign district. sign controls would revert to

the underlying zoning, which is mostly rc-4. i have included a packet that shows the difference. staff recommends that the commission either recommends against eliminating the special sign district or have it brought back for further study. the sign district controls were created for the mixed use nature. it should be taken to improving the visual impact. the next item impacts signs on van ness and is a code and map change. signs for commercial and industrial districts, there is a provision that allows for special flashing or blinking signs.

it applies to c-2 lots along van ness. it would delete the provision from section 6 under 6 and the zoning map. flashing, blanking, fluctuating signs would not be permitted. this section of the code predates the van ness area plan, which prohibits flashing or blinking signs. it is limited to property is zoned c-2, of which there -- properties zoned c-2, of which there are a handful. this section was not amended when the van ness area plan was adopted. staff is recommending that you removed van ness and make the corresponding changes. the next item deals with parking

along van ness. this was touched on earlier. currently, there is a 1-to-1 parking requirement for projects along van ness ave. the proposed legislation removes this provision and parking controls would refer to the underlying zoning. as stated earlier, supervisor chu said the commission a letter stating that he wanted to modify it the legislation for parking on van ness avenue and the rc-3 districts. he proposed eliminating the minimum requirements and allowing up 2.5 parking spaces per unit with a maximum of 0.75 per unit with conditional use. while the van ness area plan has specified 1-to-1, or moving it is consistent with the rest of the general plan. that is it for that section. any questions? commissioner sugaya: you are

recommending that there is a grandfather clause. there is an example. all of the parking we were talking about is related to residential. >> yes. it would take away all minimum parking requirements and set in maximum parking requirements. commissioner sugaya: right, but cpmc, isn't all the parking related to the office used? >> it is. there are maximum parking controls for medical use. commissioner sugaya: then i do not understand why we need a grandfather clause. >> the legislation would also change the parking requirements on van ness for non-residential uses as well. commissioner sugaya: and the implication for cpmc would be what? >> i believe it would reduce the amount of parking that they are allowed to have. commissioner sugaya: then i do

not think we should have a grandfather clause. >> noted. any other questions on van ness avenue? commissioner antonini: i think we definitely should have grandfathering, because we have a number of other products that are under construction. one would assume there grandfathered because they are already under construction. there are some that are approved or in the pipeline. also, there is the whole consideration of a lot of the housing trying to be built, in keeping with cal pacific. it might not all necessarily be in the area, but there would be an impetus for construction or more housing as part of the entitlements that are being -- that were passed for cal pacific. i think if we do not allow them enough flexibility to be able to build some housing that might have 1-to-1 parking, i do not

see the decision from what we heard earlier. it seems like you're saying the same thing in both sections. it all has to do with residential parking in the van ness corridor. >> correct. one has to do with van ness and the other has to do with rc-3 and rc-4 parking. there is quite a bit of overlap. it is a bit confusing. commissioner sugaya: we are not saying we are grandfathering in projects to all of the other districts that this applies to. it seems to me we are singling out a single project that would benefit -- that would not benefit from this particular change to the code. it is highly -- i would say it is totally unlikely that cpmc is going to build any residential project within the van ness corridor anyway.

commissioner antonini: we are not really talking about them specifically building it. the plan is such that there is an incentive for other projects to have a lot of motivation for housing to be built. again, you have to allow enough flexibility to have all kinds of different housing. you may have some when very little parking. you may have some with 1-to-1 parking. if you start putting absolute maximum on some things, you start eliminating a lot of possibilities and you make it harder for the kind of housing that would apply to particularly families. we talk about the hypothetical people who would be working at cal pacific who might want to have families. if they cannot park their car, they will not want to buy a place in this hypothetical

housing. we have to be careful about restricting things too much. >> ok. the final section deals with the streetscape improvements and the implementation of the plan. currently, section 138 1/7 as requirements associated with development projects. typically, these requirements apply to new developments on additions of a certain size. there are no explicit provisions that see the removal of existing encroachments into the public right of way to be modified in order to meet the street plan. the proposed legislation would create a subsection that would city a city inquiry into the removal of existing encroachments' for projects that meet certain triggers. they include additions of over 20% of floor area, changes in use of more than half of the floor area, and additions to

the loading. in these cases, the city may reap -- may consider the removal of encroachments, including narrowing or reducing the number of driveways, removing encroachments that impede pedestrians travel, or removing those that extend under the public right of way. we are concerned that new provisions are too broad. for instance, as the ordinance is currently written, even if one parking space is added or removed, the property owners could be required to remedy their existing encroachments. a change of use to add some of the burden on property owners that are seeking to rent out a vacant space. the department worked with supervisor chu and drafted proposed changes to the legislation. these changes would narrow the triggers in the proposed ordinance. it would expand certain tree-

planting requirements to all districts and would clarify certain other provisions in the legislation that there has been confusion about. i have detailed the changes in the exhibit j in your packet. the department is asking that you include these in your recommendation to the board. that is the end of my presentation for it if you have questions on that section, i would be happy to answer them. commissioner sugaya: i would like consideration given -- to removing the reference to removing basements that extend under the public right of way. just based on my own experience where our office building extends under the sidewalk, all of the utilities that we use, all of the sewer lines, the water lines, there is some pump down there that if it does not

run, our basement will flood. it would be extremely expensive to all of that stuff out underneath the sidewalk into within the property line. that is the case for many buildings along the street. i do not know what the intent is by that reference, but i think, just by saying that, there are a lot of things under the sidewalk that are building-related debt would have to be moved, i would think. >> i believe it only applies to basements that encroach into the public right of way, but i understand your point. commissioner sugaya: yes. our baseman goes underneath. president fong: i would have to agree. a clarification of the actual purpose of it, is it to envoy hatch's opening up and encroaching on the public realm? -- to avoid hatches opening of

an encroaching to the public realm? >> these came as -- with discussions with dpw. the city can take back any -- those are public spaces that are in those basements. there have been times when the commissioners worked on an issue related to a major project. in district 3, relating to the central subway, at one point. all of the provisions are intended to do is if the triggers are met, which would be unusual for any existing business, it would allow the department to revoke the use. it would just make it easier for the dpw process. it is not intended as a dramatic policy shift. in the case that i work on most directly with the central subway, there were retailers in union square that built out

some sidewalk basements. those were revoked in order to move the utilities from underneath the street to the basement. even utilities that were in the basement, like the one commissioner sugaya mentioned, those are public utilities. we are not so whetted to this. if the condition -- if the commission was to recommend this, i would take it back to dpw to refine the issue. it was intended as an additional tool for planning in those situations. president fong: i understand. but it could be a huge expense, may be a deal breaker, who wants to do a light remodeling. this is triggered and the city wants to take back the sidewalk. it could create underpinning, etc. >> the way we are proposing it is that it would only apply to large projects. essentially, pud's,

we are recommending larger triggers so that it does not happen with a minor remodeling. vice president wu: could i ask a follow-up question? i am looking at the last trigger, the addition of 20% or more total area. that does not seem that drastic to me. that may be a business or property owner within their regular growth of their business might want to increase by 20%. i am looking for feedback. >> in that case, there are two layers of triggers. is it a large project? is it large enough to be a pud? or does it have linear footage as a frontage.

or is it encompassing the entire block phase? we're looking at areas where we want to do a big streetscape improvements. they have to do one of those -- they have to meet one or more of those triggers. if they did, they would have to do new construction or a major addition that was at least 20%. a building of that size, a 20% addition would be a major project. for a light room -- it would not be a light remodel, it would be a larger project. president fong: a large medical building of some sort. ok. commissioner sugaya: should we just continue on? there are other names up here. those triggers seemed fine, but what happens now is what i want to know before we complicate the code even more.

does the city have the ability to go ahead if one of these projects came along, to force the property owner to extend on the sidewalk? >> i believe dpw does have the right because it is the right of way. the idea is for large projects to be able to get street permits, which you cannot do with these things under the sidewalk. that was the concept. dpw does have that right. president fong: anything further, commissioner sugaya? commissioner wu. vice president wu: i have a question about dwelling unit density. just to make sure that i understand. this is removing the lot area as

a limiting factor for dwelling unit density, correct? >> correct. vice president wu: building unit density does not have to do anything with the size of the unit, whether it is a studio or 1-bedroom. just the number of units. i just wanted to clarify that. president fong: any further questions? ok. public comment on this item. i have two cards, linda and tom. >> my name is linda. i want to speak on the parking changes for the van ness sud and rc-3 districts. i just think this is wonderful. quite a while ago, when the cpmc started, i came in and ran through the van ness plan, in

case you had not read it recently. in the er, it is referred to as visionary. at that time, i said, there is just one little thing. they need to update it by eliminating the 1-to-1 parking requirement. thanks to the supervisor, this is proposed now. i understand that commissioner antonini has doubts because he does not live in a district like russian hill or nottinghill. there are lots of districts where they pretty much need it 1-to-1 parking. in these old districts, they were built before there was a 1- to-1 parking requirement. they do not even have any parking on site at all. this includes the luxury buildings, buildings that are condos, and it works very well. assuming that you have good transit nearby, which on van ness, you obviously do. the other thing you need is to

have little retail stores, grocery stores, nearby. we certainly have a lot. and i think they would usually be near transit. the francesco, one of the premier buildings in the city, does have some parking. it is about 50% as i recall. i checked this out in connection with the spur committee and my building had none. ground towers had none, which is probably close to 100 units. this was very common in these older buildings. it worked beautifully. it is very helpful to have some public parking nearby, which we did, so that a building with no parking at all, people could leaase parking. the francesco, i talked to him and he said, no problem.

they rent a garage near the fairmont. it did not prevent units from selling. i spoke at a time -- i spoke to one of the premier sellers of these units and he would tend to reduce the price of the unit accordingly. on knob hill, two-thirds of the households have no automobile and it was for this kind of reason. one along pine, 80% of the households had no automobile for this region -- for this reason. in a high-rise, but where there was a 1.5 ratio, they had eight% -- 80% of traffic done by car. van ness would be similar.