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? >> state you're name when speaking to the planning commission. we're onitem 10, case 20101059 t for the commercial district. the council will consider d.f. 109. we're amending section 718.1 and

718.42 and 44 and 69 a of the gloning control table. >> good afternoon. the planning department is considering the legislation before you because it was originally produced by al yote that pier and -- i understand katherine stephanie is here to discuss his position on it. the ordinance was introduced on october 19th, 2010. we have a 90-day clock. that's up on january 19th, 2011. thank you. >> good afternoon. katherine stephanie.

this ordinance was initiated by supervisor pier. it is not picked up by ferrell. he intends to do outreach. we meet with the fillmore merchants association and get their input before we move sfroordm -- forward. we will have the planning commission weigh in at this time. we wanted to let you know, we plan to do outreach and meet with planning staff before he picks up the legislation. >> thank you. >> tins 2005, there -- since 2005, there has been legislation like this. this changes the commercial zoning controls.

currently upper fillmore includes full-service and small service and fast food and specialty foods and service uses and bar uses. this legislation would allow new full-service restaurants and small service and specialty food services and bars associated with full-service restaurants to apply for a conditional use authorization in the fillmore district. there would be no cap or sunset clause. the ordinance would permit the uses to be approved by the manning commission on a case by case basis. the department is recommending one modification to the legislation, which is to allow large fast food restaurants which are currently not permitted mountain n.c.d. to be permitted with conditional use approval. the department believes that opening up restaurant and specialty food and bar uses to conditional use authorization process in the upper fillmore will allow them to analyze each

application on a case by case basis. when it exceeds the neighborhood, the commission could deny the application. under the proposed legislation each will be judged on the merits of the application and the criteria and the manning code. over the years the department found that the existing categories for the restaurants are somewhat obsolete as business models change. partially intended to limit the chain fast foods rest aren'ts, the distinction is often new or emerging restaurant types and could be overly proscriptive on how businesses operate. the department feels refill controls provide adequate procedures that retail chains don't take over neighborhoods. further evaluation needs to be done on whether or not restaurant sites should be abandonned allowing all categories to be approved with condition the use authorizations will encourage competition and provide more vibrant restaurant

environment and visitors to the upper fillmore. the department recommends that the commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with modification to also allow large fast food restaurants with conditional use authorizations. that concludesly presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is paul we werer y50eb i'm speaking on behalf of the pacific heights residentence association. we had some discussion about this proposal and in general we agree with the idea of a -- of addressing the issue of the restaurant cap on fillmore. we think the draft as it stands is -- is good but it does not go far enough. we would like to do is take advantage of the -- of a little more time to work with planning

staff and to work with supervisor ferrell's office to -- to get into it a bit more and set clearer -- try to figure out ways to get clearer guidelines and criteria, so there's little more clarity for us -- for those interested in coming into the district to say, gee, is there a chance that -- that this is going to go well or is there are a reason to believe ipe not going to get this because e' -- i'm not going to get this because we're approaching saturation of this type of service. or it is too much of a formula retail application or what ever the constraints are. there's a lot of discussion that hasn't happened that needs to happen and -- i think there's a lot of guidance and input from manning staff that we would value in -- planning staff that we would value, it hasn't had chance because of the fall introduction of the -- of the

legislation and the christmas break. we're asking for more time and -- strong engagement for planning staff and supervisors' office. thank you. >> thank you. >> if not public comment is closed. i fully agree that this item takes much more public outreach than has been done at this point. not only the holl kays -- holidays interfering with any possibility but the situation of a supervisor who originally introduced it no longer serving. termed out. a new supervisor coming in and not being able to work with his constituents on it. i think that needs to be done. however, we're still and i do -- i checked on this, under the 90-day rule. so for us to continue it out of

hand puts this commission totally out of the possibility of making any comment and suggestions to the department. it is -- it has been 13, 14 years since there has been a change in the regulation if in area. and we have already heard the number of of -- the number of different districts where these regulations are in constant change. i have the same problem that i think the neighborhood has. i do not understand 17 different restaurants classifications. i -- to me, it is -- it is absolutely ridiculous. many of them came in to my understanding and my memory because of certain formula retail concerns. that was the form has retail legislation --