i want to mention that we have worked closely with sf made. in terms of coming up with the trade shop amendments to the planning code, there's a lot of creative energy right now in producing locally made goods and create local jobs. we wanted to bring some of that creative energy to other parts of the city. we have supported are two local merchants association, the taraval merchants and the outer sunset on irving. happy to answer any questions. commissioner fong: thank you. there may be questions for you in a bit. >> ok.

>> she has pretty much gone over the whole presentation, but i will show you some maps and things that a first of all, my presentation is divided into three parts. the first goes over the proposed changes to the neighborhood commercial districts bit of the second discusses the change to the trade jobs. and then a summary. quick context, this is where we're talking about the outer son said. in the outer sunset -- to start off, the zoning code has two different categories of neighborhood commercial districts. general, such as nc-1, 2, and 3. then there are more specific named neighborhood districts such as the castro ncp and polk ncd and so on.

zones are nc-1 for neighbor who closeor nc-2 for small neighborhood cluster. the purple areas are the nc-2. the lighter areas a are thenc-1. most of the air is ourrh1. this shows what supervisor carmen chu's ordinance proposes. it would read the anderson said lanier streets neighborhood commercial district. parcells is zoned nc-2 in these areas. it would create the odder cents at commercial cluster one neighborhood commercial districts. including parcels zoned nc-2 from noriega's street. finally, it would create the

outer sunset cluster two neighborhood commercial districts including parcels currently zoned nc-1 within the of person said. thenc-1's are the dark blue. in all of the new name commercial districts, there would be a five-foot height bonus that would be an active use on the ground floor. that is in section 145.1. the outer since a commercial sense that cluster two would have shot down a second floor with a cu. and the new non active commercial uses, defined by section 145.4 would require additional use authorization. this shows steps proposal. we also recommend creating three new named ncd's, but we're recommending that the nc-1's not

be included. and the others would follow the way they are organized throughout the rest of the city, which is by their street name. they would include the irving and judas street, noriega, and taraval street. the purpose of having named ncd's is tipper observe and enhance the district and allows for more targets the controls to encourage or discourage different types of uses. further, gripping neighborhood commercial districts over a mile apart defeats the purpose of creating a a namedncd. it does not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the district. recommending that the nc-1 districts remain the same, because there are sufficient controls to address the character. we also recommend a five-foot height bonus be added to these new north carolina -- ncd's.

2 mending36.2. we're recommending that these on the control table be modified to require a conditional use authorization for those not listed as active commercial uses in the planning code, rather than creating a specific provision that requires not active commercial uses to contain conditional use authorization. the result would be the same. what we're proposing, we believe, is more up front and clear on what the regulations are and less confusing. fur trade shops, the proposed ordinance would at catering to the definition. it would allow trade shop without a retail component at the rear two-thirds of the building, and it would remove the numerical course parliament and replace them with performance standards. staff is in support of the change. we're recommending that catering be taken out as a

separate used to address some of the specific uses or specific issues with catering, such as it is not the retail use or does not have a regional component, and the trucks and the traffic it would generate. we're also recommending that one-third of the total floor area limitation be removed from the trade job definition, and we have proposed clarifications on the trade shop definition. just to summarize, we would like the current nc-1 zoning to be maintained in the sunset district, allow the five-foot height bonus, create the three dead -- a 3 news ncd named's, an opposition for the use is not defined as at the commercial uses. create a separate news category for catering in the planning code. remove the one-third of gross floor area limitation on mechanical equipment from the trade job definition. modified sections 263.2 to allow

five-foot high bonus, and some of the title of the section. it is six lines long. and then, clarified the intention of the proposed changes to the trade shop definition. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to take questions. commissioner fong: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> i have two speaker cards on this. eric and paul. paul. >> good afternoon. >> one second. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name in paul. it is always nice to be here too enthusiastically endorse a proposal to the use of the name

district is so important for the neighborhood character and quality of life. we see that so much in the upper fillmore where i live and die in the japantown -- and in the japantown planning, we're very focused on this bitter that is outstanding that it is going forward. the trade shot changes also very important. i am very glad to see that happening. a lot of what i was going to say has been undercut, so this will be shorter than might be otherwise. one, i have is on a noise controls. currently, it says noise will not be audible outside the boundary. that is a very strict requirement. i believe there are already ordinances that talk about noise relative to the ambient, relative to the background. noise is disruptive in the way it is relative to the surroundings, and it may well be that the revision to that

requirement will make it easier for businesses to operate in a way that works well in the commercial district. again, if we look at some of the existing noise language and make it relative to the existing our current background noise that the type of operation. i would encourage that be considered. otherwise, i made some recommendations, and i have sent him to supervisor chu's office. i look forward to seeing this move forward expeditiously through land use and the board of supervisors. >> thank you. eric, mary ann, and enga. >> a couple questions. first, i am a neighbor in a judicious -- judas, right where it changes from residential to commercial. this is the first i have heard of it. i wonder if the residents can hear more of the process on how we're going to hear more about with -- what this means.

because i have no idea. that is why i am here, to try and find out. and what is it going to mean in terms of parking in the area? that is becoming an issue as this little area gets more commercial. this is the judah-irving area. thank you. that is all. >> mary ann miller, i am speaking on behalf of the sunset park said education and action committee. we generally represent the -- residents and do not have representation in the commercial district, but we used our commercial district. we love the commercial districts.

the question of vital opposition or revitalization, it seems to us, is always an economic issue. yet, it -- if naming is a good idea, so be it. it is just as some of the other controls are a little bit worrisome. and at the end of what i say, i would like to ask you to make these controls temporary and let us see what unintended consequences may occur. will there be a rise in truck traffic? will there be late night to deliveries and so on? could a fried one-third be separated from a rear two-thirds trade shop, and the trade job overwhelm, even though there is sort of a frontage and a display window, with this heavier mechanical use, manufacturing use, possibly become a nuisance? and we just do not know how this will play out. so i would say not a sunset, but a sundown, which would be almost

three years with a bit of an inventory occurring in those three named nc districts in the outer sunset. an inventory of what did go in. was it a spur to neighborhood growth or do we have some nuisances happening there? those districts were not meant to be wholesale and manufacturing. nearly language that supervisor chu had had wholesaling and manufacturing as the permitted use up to 10,000 feet. we got scared by that. it has been modified since and explained to us better. wholesaling is not allowed, but it is not so stated. i am worried about the storage of things did you make things, the manufacture things, and later, you have to store them. does this lead to this becoming a distribution center with an additional trucks?

certainly, the odder son session not absorb that kind of use. the best the counter sun's that should not absorb that kind of use. as it becomes more of an industrial district, that does not sound right out there in that rh-1 and rh-2 neighborhood. so please be cautious and give it a sundown clause. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. from 1983 to 1987, i worked as a planner in the city planning department on the neighborhood commercial to zoning study, and the company made it through its adoption before the board of supervisors. i am also a resident of the outer son said. when the legislation was adopted in 1987, there were 270

nc district city-wide classified as a generic nc-1 nc- 2, nc-3, , and nc-s districts. several several restricted use districts as an overlay. since then, the number of the main district has grown to 23. will this trend continue until all 270 district surnamed? that is just a little bit to put this in context. the name recognition for the district in the sun said will be welcome, but i think that, as it was already city, the small nc- 1 districts along the western most parts of noriega, irving, and taraval and judah street not

need special name recognition. the planning department recommends that there are three named district to replace the existing nc-2 districts along taraval, noriega, judah, and irving streets. that is a very acceptable proposal. however, the department neglects to integrate the taraval restaurant subdistrict in the irving street restaurant subdistrict into the new nc district, right into the restaurant controls. as well as other controls, such as limited hours of operation for medical cannabis dispensaries. when the named districts were originally created in the mid- 1980's, it was a major goal to include all applicable sub

districts into the use table so that it would be easier to see what is allowed. [bell rings] as it stands at the moment, you have written for restaurants permitted, but then way at the end of the table, it says that there are conditional use or no permits. and i would like this to be changed. also, that staff takes a look at the judah street and noriega's street, which are in between -- [bell rings] >> thank you very much. >> so that is comprehensive. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes, interesting legislation. i like it in general.

i understand the confusion as to the definition, size, and that type of thing. to an extent, in many instances, catering falls into that because they cook in the back and have a small restaurant in the front, yet their main business is catering. so with catering, you'll have to consider that as well. there are many restaurants and delis in san francisco that are in the catering business for a good part of their income, even though it may not be apparent from the street. i really appreciate your work with sf made. their experience in dealing with areas of san francisco, in my mind, as an excellent. there was a comment that district 7 may be next, and that sort of falls in some of the

comments. you have got, in my mind, perhaps some artificial boundaries here, particularly 19th avenue. and i understand that supervisor chu is the one that put this forward. but the neighborhood commercial districts do not appreciate supervisor districts. they tend to go on. they do not care whose district they are in in the sense of where they're located. at times, they have little in common on the two sides of the major geographic boundary, such as a 19th avenue. but in many instances, they have a great deal in common. so it bothers me a little bit that we're dealing with, and in

some terms, part of a commercial district and not the whole thing. i do not think that is logical add all. i think the whole thing should be considered together, and that goes for many of the districts that we are considering here. i am is certainly not going to oppose legislation because of that. but i do not think the artificiality in this instance of a supervisor district serves the question very well. other than that, i think it is an excellent idea. i like the fact that there has been, from what i can tell, a very good outreach, particularly to the commercial interest but also to the major neighborhood residential group, and i applaud the work that has gone into it. commissioner antonini:

generally, i do not favor increasing controls, but sometimes some sort of oversight is necessary. i would agree with some of the things that commissioner miguel said, although i do feel that even within a given street, there are distinct different neighborhood commercial areas. take a curving street. irving street and the inner sunset in conjunction with ninth avenue. is a different type of area. the more we make these discrete, probably the better we can handle their needs. and i do agree that splitting them up into individually named areas is a good way to do it. in fact, you may even want to split irving from judah, although they do have similarities but you could certainly do that. taraval from noriega. the part about the 5 ft. height think everybody feels

the that is a really good thing to do, because it returns these neighborhood commercial store fronts to something that is a lot more attractive, and during the 1960's through the 1980's, we tried to pile as many floors as we could at the same height of the expense of the ground floor. that is why we ended up with these crunched ground force, which are not as attractive and inviting. and i was a resident for four years in the sunset during dental school, and i live in the west portal area, actually lakeside village, but i frequently did go to the sunset. not as much anymore. and i think this may be part of what we're able to do. i think we have a lot less a variety of retail uses on some of these streets than we did see when i was living there and in years after that in the 1960's and 1970's. i am not saying we need

lumberyards, but there was one there, and there were nursery's and more of a variety of restaurants and more evening activities. stationery stores, appliance stores. a lot of these things are not there as much as they used to be. the uses are sort of limited. part of it might be a product of the fact people today do not do all their shopping. they go other places to shop, neighborhoods do not have to be all-inclusive. but some neighborhoods have remained more welcoming and more inclusive. for example, west portal has a lot of different things that you would like to have in a neighborhood, where some of these other streets we are dealing with here are more limited. so, maybe we can figure out why some neighborhoods are able to continue to keep on being a center for activity, whereas others are not. so i think it is good legislation. i would agree with some of the speakers who had some question about the trade shot part of it

and just kind of take a look at that to make sure that uses that are not -- as long as we have square footage limits and we're really careful about the effects of the neighbors, we do not want to turn these neighborhood areas into commercial centers. also, we have to make sure we have the powers to police and that the activities are actually what they are reported to be, as opposed to other things. that is always a case we have to deal with with anything that is approved. but i think it is basically a good idea. i think it is going to help a lot of things. we could maybe have more street enhancement and things along those areas if we make these industry areas and that the merchants in the neighbors in the area interact and be able to make these streets more welcoming. commissioner sugaya: yes, staff, can i get a clarification on the 5 ft. height increase. does that also apply to nc-1's?

>> we are recommending that it does apply, and we meant section263, i think it is, to include those specific parcels. so there would be a hash tag, and he would have to go to that section. in some correspondence arguing that perhaps it is not necessary and that it might also, because of the work of the previous step and task force took place in establishing the nc district. in the sunset, it appeared as though they head enough height saw to accommodate taller retell high on the first floor and still accommodate two or three floors of residential. >> what we find is developers always want to maximize the floor to ceiling height in residential units. it sells for more. so we're always fighting with them to give us a larger ground

floor, and they're also -- always fighting back to do that for residential floors. this sort of negates that argument. commissioner antonini: on the changes to the trade, trade shops -- i do not know if i missed it, but are there going to be changes in the requirements for things like loading and deliveries? >> there are already performance standards in article 7 that apply to all neighborhood commercial districts. >> if we're changing of from one-third to two-thirds in the amount of square footage goes up for a trade show, does that other section in the planning code then take into account what might be increased need for deliveries for loading docks or that kind of thing? >> actually, the current trade job definition allows the

entire store front to be used as a trade shot, but it needs to have some sort of retail component so that it is open to the public. with this legislation does is it says he can have a trade show without a retail company, but it is limited to the rear two- thirds of it. and the front one-third is required to have an active use. so it is actually kind of shrinking the availability of trade shop square footage. what we heard from sf made is that 1500 sq. ft. is kind of the sweet spot for their clients and the kind of space they are looking for. commissioner miguel: now? -- commissioner sugaya: now? >> yes, now. commissioner sugaya: is there any relationship between what the if trade shows and the use of the front of the store? >> no, there does not have to be a relationship. commissioner sugaya: thank you. commissioner miguel:

appreciating the fact that the department and the supervisor's office is continuing work on this, i would recommend approval with the modifications as presented by the planning staff. >> on the question of loading, requirements are based on size, right? >> correct. there is a loading dock trigger in the planning code. i think it is really large. >> otherwise, of businesses in nc districts have on-street loading? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: yes, i think the supervisor mentioned that they had done some outreach to other supervisors because of the way it will affect other neighborhood commercial districts in their suburban hours -- supervisorial districts. i would like to encourage some outreach to the neighborhood

commercial organizations that exist over this, unless you have already done that. especially the trade shop changes, there might be some, you know, positive or negative, whatever, feedback that you might get depending on the district. i was trying to think there might be some issues with established ncd's that are named that have very specific code language and whether or not this might not even fit in or not fit in. it would be good to get feedback from those various organizations, i think. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval with the modifications offered by staff. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner fong: aye.

>> thank you. that motion passed unanimously. >> we're going to take a short break here. we have a full calendar. so we're going to take about a 10 to 15-minute break. >> ok, a 15-minute recess.