i am with littell city. i wanted to point out the removal -- of the encroachment. the criteria are the same that trigger their requirements for streetscape improvements. it is the match. the director was pointing out is the larger projects. removing those, it is permissive. the funding commission may. it does not say you shall. if there was a great hardship or that basement was not earning anything, [unintelligible] it is an important tool. important streetscape improvements. the only places they have not gone in is where there was a corner basement. you could say that we would

like you to put in a mandated curb cut as part of your project. it did to the discretion to do that. we were trying to be permissive in that and it is a good move. that is the last plan that increased of street parking requirements in san francisco. every other plan that has been adopted subsequent decrease. rc 4 has this. looking at that corridor, bus rapid transit that is being planned, that is one of our project and we're happy to see that moving forward. the idea that you need to have a one to one requirement is antiquated. we think these lower requirements that match those in chinatown, north beach, broadway, all the other transit oriented district probably makes

sense for that quarter. as of street parking has evolved. of the van ness side district, you can hold those restrictions. something that is not allowed in other districts and disallowed in nc district is advertising signs. considering we want to pack a lot of residents into the corridor, allowing giant billboards to relocate is probably bad policy. we would urge you to if your recommendation is to keep it in place, get rid of the permitting those giant billboards. that is a piece of business the city has voted on and we do not want those billboards in neighborhoods, especially in a neighborhood like van ness that is so dense. thank you. president fong: is there

additional public comment? commissioner antonini: a question on the parking. in the rc 4 and the bana specialist district, there is now minimal requirement being proposed, is that correct? it would not have to have that if you opted not to, is that correct? >> correct but it is points -- 0.375 and 0.5 for the rc 3 and the van ness quarter. >> that is my question. i think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding in regard to my comments. i am not asking their be a minimum requirement. all i am saying is we need flexibility. these are policies that will be with us for a long time to come

and if we make the maximum to restrictive, we will disincentivize this projects that need to have parking and need to cater to families and others who need cars. they cannot or will not choose to have the car parked in a garage a few blocks away. it would rather have it within the building. we're not saying we have to build parking one to one or even 0.5 or even 0.375 but we would allow that in van ness. if i were not going to make a motion -- i will not make a motion that but it will be to approve as everything is proposed except for three things. staff -- along with staff recommendation for grandfathering that is in your report and also for your comments on the special sign district. but then i would want to see an

allowance as a right for van ness to have parking one-to-one if they so choose but with no minimum requirement. an>> would that be 0.5 along van ness and the cu with one to one? >> the problem with having the cu, it would -- we have to have a long discussion. i would rather have no requirement. and you said it is -- one of these is 0.75 and the other is 0.5 for the rc districts. i would say 0.5 billion both of them. i am not sure why there is a difference between the two with 0.75 with the cu which is

different from what you have. you're starting as a right from .5 in the rc 4 if i am not mistaken. >> the desire was to mirror the current parking requirements except to get rid of the minimum. right now, the permitted amount is 150% of the minimum. once we took out, 150% of nothing -- i did not get that far in math class. that 0.375 is 150% of 0.25. that is why that is in there and that is it. we were considering before taking away they ban us entirely to have to go back to rc 4 so

it went to change and ness and change rc 4. that has been something that was talked about at a previous discussion. with regard to the maximums, where we have been moving is to get rid of minimums and lower the permitted amount so that when the commission does decide to go higher than the permitted amount, it is in consideration of projects around the -- issues around the project. the commissions grants amounts above the permitted amount regularly. there might be some disagreements of what you can go up to. >> we have not had many successful cu's in octavia. i can see that arguments could

be made in that area which is more residential, denser. van ness is such a diversity of different uses, i could easily see buildings being proposed that would want to have one to one and would probably have to handgun meeting that. a lot of them filled with very little parking. we are hearing things that are proposed we're a lot of rental residential will be built closer perhaps to van ness and market that will have a lower ratio of parking and higher density. we have to be flexible where we are backing ourselves into a corner. that is the reason for my proposal. >> very much appreciated. commissioner miguel: i would like to thank the department and supervisor chiu's office on

bringing this into sections. on coming down to a fair agreement on things, i cannot see personally why the van ness does not go straight to the rc 4 requirements. but rather than trying to fine tune it further, i am going to move that will accept the -- we approve it is stated with the recommendations that have been and move it for me that way. >> i am -- >> we recommended not changing that or sending in a way for further study. commissioner miguel: i will go along with including that. and further study. >> you want that item to come back to you as separate legislation or to continue the

chu legislation to come back in a couple months? >> i would -- i think my motion would be to approve the department's recommendations, including the recommendation that should be looked at for their. >> not included in the current package? >> right. president fong: is their second? -- is there a second? >> commissioner sugaya: if the grandfathering clause was not in their and the legislation went out of here, went to supervisor chu and went to land use and got adopted by the board, with the

provisions of the ordinance take place immediately on projects that have not been approved? >> it would apply to projects that have not pulled their final permit. besting applies when you apply for your final permits. there are a number of projects you have not approved with one to one parking that would with a grandfather in provision be allowed to go ahead and approve them. >> most of them have not started. >> it would have to lower their parking. the point of doing this is to say you haven't -- you have approved a number of projects with a certain amount of parking and for purposes of grandfathering to allow those projects to go forward. >> they are basing their

financing of it. >> that was the thinking. >> it is not my problem. anyway, i understand where this is going. you take your chances any time you are a developer. they're not invested in these projects. we do not know if they have financing. i cannot vote for the legislation because of that one particular reason. commissioner antonini: i would argue the opposite. argue the opposite. i think -- we went through this

i completely understand your need and the need of the city to have a one-to-one. this area is transit rich. maybe one of the richest and i do not think there is here to fore five-bedroom homes where cars will be one and two bedroom

and studios where one car -- if there is a car going to occur. i am sympathetic but in this case my personal feelings is less parking is doable in this area. commissioner wu: i wanted to ask about the special sign district and the request around the general advertising sign. if you could explain how they're dealt with. inthe motion -- the motion is to study it further. if you could explain how it exists now. >> it allows general advertising signs in the van ness advertising district. you can move the general advertising sign but only to this neighborhoods -- the neighborhoods who allowed a general advertising sign.

the motion as it is stated, could this be part of the further study? do we need to take some action on it now? i think that would be my recommendation. commissioner antonini: one final thing on the parking and i appreciate your comments. we're talking about one car per unit. in the event that someone feels they want to build that and does not mean they have to. there is a big difference between a maximum and minimum. that is my point. when you have a family and you have a lot of things that go with children, sometimes a couple of blocks carrying things with you and makes it attractive. willow for that. it is comforting to know that we are grandfathering in some places that hopefully will be

billed that will allow for that demographic as part of the future residents in van ness. that was my point about allowing the opportunity for a project to have enough parking, not the requirement they have to have it. >> if i understood the suggestion, it was that we could pert -- take action to ban the general advertising sign in this motion. there are other provisions, is that correct? >> you could say -- >> that seems fairly reasonable. getting rid of the special sign district we think needs more study and evaluation. prohibiting general advertising signs seems pretty straightforward. >> i do not know if the commission will entertain an

amendment that would add banning general advertising signs only and studying the rest of the provisions through the sign district. president fong: movement accepted. >> the motion before you is to approve excepting staff recommendation with the amendment to eliminate two -- to ban general advertising signs. on that motion, commissioner antonini, no. commissioner borden, aye. commissioner miguel, aye. commissioner sugaya come aye. commissioner wu, aye. commissioner fong, aye. the motion passes.

you're now on item 12. zoning map amendments and the special use district 1, waterfront special district used to in three and special districts for sign elimination and special districts for cynics streets. >> for this one we would ask you not to get rid of these actions in district but delay the special sign district for elimination from the zoning maps. >> repeat the last part again? >> keith a. van ness special sign district on the zoning map but delete a special sign -- delete the van ness from -- elimination from the zoning map. that would prevent looting,

blinking signs. -- looming, blinking signs. it is an old code provision that was not deleted. president fong: is there any question or comment? is there a motion? >> so moved. president fong: is there public comment, my apologies. seeing none, is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> on the motion to except staff recommendation. commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, aye,

commissioner miguel, aye, commissioner sugaya, aye, commissioner wu, aye. the motion passes unanimously. >> think you for your work and patience. -- thank you for your work and your patience. >> you are now on item 13. case no. 2011.1439dd for 2539 vallejo street.

>> the case before you is a staff initiated discretionary review as well as a neighborhood initiated discretionary review. this is a late submission from the d.r. requestor which is the alternative proposal. it was submitted after that deadline. i am passing it out now. the subject property is on the south side of alito -- vallejo street. there is a single family

residence. it is 40% of a lot. the existing building has no set aside. it slopes laterally out poured from east to west. the proposal is to extend the first and second floors 13.5 into the rear yard and construct a vertical addition. the subject project includes a roof and interior alterations. since the notification went out and the staff initiated d.r. was filed and the neighbors d.r. was filed, the project has been modified to include a matching light will and a 3 foot setback on the west side of the property on the upper floors for the last 10.5 feet of the addition. staff requirement was for a matching light well. and a five-foot setback for the

last 10.5 feet of the building which has partially been met. we find a five-foot setback is necessary to mitigate the impact to the adjacent neighbors. the d.r. requestor would appreciate stepping setbacks eight flighfeet and would like property lines. we recommend you take a permit with staff modifications. even with the most recent modifications the project does not find the project meets design guidelines. it is supported by the residents association and by the cal hollow prior to the modifications. i am not sure where they stand now. the recommendation is to require

a 5 foot setback for the last 10.5 feet of the addition. president fong: d r requestor, you have five minutes. >> i am here on behalf of louise beal. i want to point out the first time i heard of this project is when she came to me and i told her i would not do it. they said they had talked to the project sponsor and had recommended revisions and it was going to be made smaller. after a year of phone calls and

other calls to the department and nothing happened, no changes were made, i agreed to try and help ms. beale. i want to show what happened. this is the existing condition from the beer of the property. after two years, no changes were made to the originally proposed project. this was what was originally proposed in 2010 and up until two weeks ago, this was the existing proposal again. you can see it is a dramatic block covering the entire rear property. and creates an enormous amount of shadow. this is shadow and light.

if these are not extraordinary circumstances, i cannot see where there would be a more extraordinary circumstance in -- then drop -- blocking out all the light. this is not in your packet. we got this proposal. you can see it is virtually indistinguishable from the one that is existing for two years. let me give you some of the numbers. the proposed adding 1800 square feet to their existing property of 3200 square feet. that is the equivalent of adding two 900 square-foot two- bedroom units. it is huge. it is enormous. her saying they cannot after two years, all the cut out was 75 square feet. this is not consistent with the

design guidelines and the association said it is not consistent and for the revision should be made. i want to give you some quick shadow analysis of what exists. here is a bird's-eye view of the shadow created by the original proposal and by their most recent proposal. there is virtually no improvement to the shadows that exist on either of these units. what we are asking is for our proposal to take off approximately another 275 square feet from what they have taken out and create a proposal similar to this.

we're less concerned with this because the other side, the other neighbor made an arrangement and they're happy with the way it is. we had proposed this be set back on the east side but they do not wanted there. that is ok with us. but taking off an additional 275 square feet, you still get an increase of almost 50% of this project. there is plenty of room. if you take a look at four plants you will note they are not very efficient. you have halls and sitting areas, you have all kinds of great space. you have huge walk-in closets. i want one minute left for my client to get up and see what this means to her. >> i moved into 2541 vallejo

street in 1976 with my family. they were built at the same time around 1913 by a father for his two daughters. the houses are very similar in design and proportion and the lots are similar in size. my father purchased the house because he was an avid gardener. the back rooms open out into the garden. we spent many weekends planting and enjoying the space. president fong: thank you. >> there is an opportunity for each person to have their three minutes. the representative of the d.r. requestor requested that person be given the remainder of his time and that is what