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 grandfathering back a bit. i am going to get some data on pipeline projects and who has applied for environmental and health longley have had. we are almost certain to move that provision -- environmental and how long they have had. we do not want someone who pulls environmental seven years ago and have not done anything to then not be subject to these new rules that we think make sense. we are committed to respecting the pipeline. commissioner miguel: the other question is regarding the future as i alluded to. the way here this is if someone were to do a future project, the best they could get by conditional use would be one for every two units. they would get one for every

four units. >> there is an issue here with the phasing of the legislation. phase three includes language that would shift the parking, in the underlying district to point to five as a one -- . .25. as of right now, if you approve this phase but that other face does not go forward, -- phased does not go forward, you are correct. -- phase does not go forward you , you are correct. right now it is unlimited. projects can get an unlimited amount of parking. that is my understanding of existing situation and what we're proposing. commissioner miguel: that was

somewhat better. not allowing the one to one as a right as far as i am concerned, particularly with the overly we have heard a lot about in regards to -- overlay we have heard a lot about in regards to the hospital. i forget what the ratio is. three to one. that is a huge amount. i am not talking about cal pacific. there are obliged to provide this housing but they cannot put in -- they are obliged to provide this housing but they cannot put in a parking. that is dangerous -- what is dangerous about van ness. i am not sure if we have unlimited, maybe 1 to one and you would need a cu to go above that. if you can convey that to the president chiu. >> we are looking at adjusting

the rc4 numbers if that makes sense. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: is this in or out as regarding commercial uses? >> let me grab the chart and i can read what we said. commissioner sugaya: it says while the department supports these efforts, lccu's should not be amended without further examination. >> this is the only staff recommendation we partially agree with. let me explain. what we said in february is partially agree -- we partially agree. in no way would we change the provisions for octavia, we will review after the five-year

review. we are interested in continuing discussions outside and the other districts this applies to. there are real situations we have heard about where property owners are looking to put lccu's in. we are interested in continuing that discussion. you have our commitment we would not changes in the places that have that community planning process. commissioner sugaya: thank you. i kind of agree with ms. hester, why can't we get rid of the cm's? >> it is a good point. probably something the department should look at in the future. commissioner sugaya: there is no objection at some point in the future to look at this.

>> the cm district is in the western soma. that leaves one partial that should be rezoned. i am sure the supervisors would be open to that or the recommendation. we could have a clean up ordinance that is in the works now. it is not getting picked now because of the zoning. we could include it as a staff recommendation. >> if i could add on to that. i think the cm is heavy commercial with an emphasis on wholesale. i understand the problem being sort of orphan lots. as a description i do not think the proposed changes match. they are to not permit service parking, to require a cu for the sites that might house a personal delivery truck -- oif t

is a heavy commercial, more of a wholesale business zone, i do not think the changes are appropriate with the intent of the zone. i understand the cm parcel should be rezoned to another zone. >> one last thing. under accessory uses, i find the language -- it says the basis for the recommendation, this change replaces arbitrary numerical limits. we're referring to changing 1/4 to 1/3. is that still not a numerical limit? >> i was referring to the hp limits which we felt were arbitrary. we found out an industrial grade

vacuum cleaner or coffee grinder can exact -- can exceed that limit. we were not saying that the actual square footage was arbitrary. >> the one-third is consistent with accessory uses and -- consistent with the other districts. it is one-third already. this would make it consistent. it does not do anything to affect the live-work provisions, just to make that clear. >> could someone remind me why we are doing this? changes to rc, cm, accessory. it is a general comment. who perpetrated this idiotic, my opinion, approach to this. it makes no sense to me. no background planning going on, it is affecting little parts of

the zoning code here in there. we had clean up which i voted for. it is just to me -- i do not know how to characterize it. i do not understand why this is subject to environmental. >> a lot of it is making it consistent with other elements of the planning code and for modernizing and updating it. it does serve important functions and purposes that mr. starr does outlined in his report. the legislation did go through appropriate review by the department staff. it has been subject to that. commissioner moore: i would like to be practical. what is occurring here is a very good informative discussion. if i am approving what is supposed to become legislation, too many conditional, we have to fix this or clarify this, and so

on. i'm not a lawyer but i know when i am supposed to sign at the bottom line. i have read the small print, the lawyer has reviewed all the ins and outs and i am comfortable supporting it with the qualification i am not one of them. i'm looking for the department thing the experts. they themselves seem to be responding to the questions from the public. we have to fix this or look at this and if it is not ready for prime time? i am interested in doing what you are describing. the work before me does not justify me to support it. commissioner antonini: i think there was -- a part of the legislation dealing with turning out the lights. on signs in businesses after they are no longer there. i do not understand that. a lot of times, science are

informative for at a -- sciigns are informative or they are security. the floods are on a photoelectric cell because it keeps people from breaking into the front door because there are the flights there and allows people to know where our office is. -- the light is there and allows people to know where our office is. this is not right in front. this is almost the same thing. >> it would not provide security lights from staying on. it would eliminate signs that have to turn off. that is something you could recommend to keep in the van ness area. commissioner antonini: they're paying the bill and if they want to have their lights on during the night and people see the sign and get some advertising

benefit, it does add a sense of security. just elimination in general. nothing worse than a dark street where nothing is on. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you, commissioner antonini. as the maker of the motion, i would amend my own motion to include that as a recommendation from the commission, that the provision to turnoff signs when the business closes be eliminated. i think it is necessary for business in general to have that type of advertising available. and i say as someone who capped a neon sign on my own small neighborhood business on after hours, on a timer, it went off at 11 or 12 at night and came

back on at 8 in the morning. it support businesses, we're not just talking about certain districts in the city necessarily but the concept in general. i would amend my own motion to include that. commissioner w>> i will run down the staff report. i made the comments already about the automotive uses. first on the lccu's and the conditional use section and whether or not 317 is covering it. can you clarify for me what that means? if passed, what will happen if a

-- it is a dwelling unit changes to an lccu or is it the a way around? >> it is when a dwelling unit changes to an lccu. it requires conditional use authorization. section 317 requires mandatory d.r. when you are losing one dwelling unit. in theory, to lose one dwelling unit would be a d.r., for lccu's it would require a conditional use. it would be specific for lccu's. only when you are losing a dwelling when installing a lccu would you be required to do it conditional use. >> i would like to see a d.r. sensitive a -- instead of a cu.

>> that is the way it is currently. >> on accessory uses, this is kind of detail. i looked at the code and i am not sure what the proposal is for which zones the change is from one-quarter to one-third. i want to ask why 1/3. is it consistency with the rest of the city? i do not know if this is going into too much detail, i am on page 183 of the original proposed code. it looks to me like the change from one-quarter to one-third is in all the zones. it is in crcn and pdr. >> it is in this district. it is not in residential district. as scott mentioned earlier, ncd's already have the one

third. >> what about the hafts -- n and pdr. -- n and pdr? >> they are not changing the accessory uses in pdr. >> that is what i cannot resolve in the legislation. i'm looking at section 20 4.3. -- 204.3. >> it would be the one third. >> if you looked, pdr's dealt with in the existing code 20 43b. pdr district have a one-third threshold, whereas -- districts

have a one-third districts whereas c districts have 1/4. all the district have the same one-third rule. >> why the one-third? >> the drafter of the ordinance thought it was a lot more flexibility for businesses, gave them more room, more opportunity to succeed in that respect. it is a question of consistency. why would we choose to lead a greater portion of the use in the mc district or mixed use district to be an accessory compared to a dr. -- cr. that helps in implementation. we know that we're telling someone accessory use is one third, it is one furred throughout the does. zoning district. i have never -- one-third

through the rest of the zoning districts. that is what is. it is one-quarter in -- currently in the cm district. this is trying to upgrade our level of consistency. >> michael -- my next question is about the washington-broadway sud's. are we hearing both of the items at once so i can talk about the map changes? >> i defer to landeta. -- linda. >> i have a -- i am hesitant to combine the two sud's into one. although right now is about parking control and some of these and other controls. i think they are subsequentldif. one is chinatown and one is

jackson square. to combine them could invite other controls on the sud that are not appropriate. >> to clarify, the map was incorrect, and had been out there for a while. joint sud would not go beyond columbus street. it would stay on the western side -- eastern side of columbus street. it would not actually going to chinatown. -- go into chinatown. >> so right now, the existing conditions, there is a [inaudible] sud one and two? and so one is clearly in chinatown, right? it is a proposal they are not -- under the proposal, they're not combined? >> it is getting rid of the sud in chinatown.

>> i am sorry, i do not understand. >> if you look at the proposed map, if you draw a line -- all that area here on this side of columbus would not be in the sud anymore. >> essentially you are getting rid of what is existing at washington-broadway sud 1. >> correct. >> i feel like that is a substantial change. i do not know what the controls are on washington-broadway. i feel like it would be hard to make it determination on that without knowing what the current

controls are. it is a different proposal. it is the proposal to get rid of the sud. and i think the last thing i wanted to say is i would ask planning to work with a representative from japantown on the lccu issue. >> we have someone in planning that works with japantown and they are available to discuss legislation with them. we are not -- we were not available to go to the meetings. we will continue with japantown. commissioner antonini: we are voting for a and b together. >> the motion was for 12a. commissioner antonini: we will make motions of b.

sounds good. commissioner moore: as we are voting both motions together, i am concerned about pushing out the boundary into what is in to planned jurisdiction. we're moving the boundary out toward the north point beach area. we are interfering with another planning area and another jurisdiction. i do not have enough feedback on understanding what this implies. commissioner borden: i am trying to understand, is that true what commissioner moore just said? >> we are not expanding them to a different area. i am sorry there is confusion.

i was informed of this last night that the map we produced four that was incorrect. if you draw a line along columbus street and erase the portion that is in chinatown, that would be the new waterfront sud. i am sorry, washington. >> where are we on the 90-day clock? >> if i could jump in on washington-bred wyck, there was not an intention to make much more than a clinic. there is confusion. my request would be we would deal with that i and phase three and we would clarify and agreed we will not change anything. this was intended as a cleanup. the only thing that is changing