>> thank you. lastly, whereabout to supervisor wiener's letter, i agree with supervisor mar that making -- taking supervisor wiener's approach would be even more of a blanket than this would be and i think that if there's any possibility of smaller financial institutions being able to not have to come to us, then that would be encouraging. i'm going to make a motion, then, to recommend approval without the reference to the whatever it's called. >> without the staff recommendation to delete the retail sales category. commissioner sugaya: yes, thank you. >> i'll second that and i just want to mention that i also started my bank account in school with a.p.g.'s concept but the idea of getting cash, i do

not happen to have a bank in my immediate neighborhood at all. but i do have free standing a.t.m.'s and they service the neighborhood and to me, i'm looking towards finally getting some peripulation -- you know what i mean -- as they go further into areas of the city so you can obtain cash and you can deposit and you can check on your balances and you can even transfer money from an account to an account and although i understand commissioner antonini's comments regarding d.r., i do not think that what we're talking about really should fall under the exceptional and extraordinary concept so i am absolutely in favor of this.

>> second. vice president wu: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'm opposed for reasons slated earlier but i do have a question for staff and i raised it briefly and this is in regards to future -- if we do, only we make a recommendation, board of supervisors will be passing this legislation, and if they do move financial institutions into the definition of formula retail and hayes valley, north beach and i believe china town do not allow formula retail, would that mean that new branches could not be built in those neighborhoods? >> you're correct although i think north beach has a -- half of it you can and half of it you can't. i'm sorry, they do prohibit formula retail outright but currently only half of the district doesn't allow banks and the other half does so this would effectively make new formula retail banks completely prohibited in north beach and hayes valley but financial services are already prohibited in the china town district that

would be impacted by this so it doesn't really change anything there. commissioner antonini: right. it would change it for hayes valley and half of north beach and any other neighborhoods that might have bans, i don't believe there are -- west portal, as we mentioned, with additional financial services although i believe the charles schwab which incidental does have branches throughout the city a few years ago was able to go in during the period of the ban and was actually able to expand to a second store front about 10 years ago. i'm not quite sure of the mechanics on that because it predated my time on the commission but they may be a way that they can allow an exemption to the financial services ban in west portal at this time. >> i would just like to point out that both north beach and hayes valley were here today and spoke in favor of this so they're aware of it and what it does. commissioner antonini: yeah. but we make laws citywide, not

just -- because sometimes those laws might have effects on people who are not necessarily residents of an area but do business there and need a branch bank or another service and even though the residents may not want it, they don't control the entire city. they do control their neighborhood to some degree. we just have to look at it from both sides. >> i understand. vice president wu: i would add that i am also supportive of the legislation and of the idea of looking at sales and services, comma, retail, with the other broad category. i believe sales and services, other retail and there's a number of other broad categories within the current definition that we could take a longer look with community members around how those could -- we might want to see them changed. and the last thing i want to say is that, yes, the big banks may invest money in the neighborhoods but they are also required by the community

reinvestment act so wanted to remind us of that. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval in not accepting the amendment offered by staff. on that motion, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: no. >> commissioner borden? commissioner miguel, commissioner moore, commissioner sugaya. that motion passed 5 to 1 with commissioner antonini voting against. you are now on item 12 a, 12b. use of signs, building features, floor area ratio, parking and compliance in specified use districts and 12b is zoning map amendments washington broadway special use district one. waterfront special use districts 2 and 3, special district for

sign illumination and special district for phoenix street. >> hello, me again. here from supervisor chu's office to give an introduction. >> thank you, mr. starr. good afternoon, commissioners. judson true from david chu's office. before planning staff, before mr. starr goes through phase two of the so-called northeast zoning legislation, i want to give a quick overview of where we are procedurally which i think would be helpful. you saw a version of this document when i was last mere in march but i want to hand out this one-page document which describes the various ordinances this legislation is broken up into and i can tell you about where we are so if i can give this to -- and i do have copies available if any members of the

public would like some, as well. and again, this is really an only slightly modified version of the phasing plan, the status update you received in march. right now, our office is working closely with the city attorney. we recently received a transmittal from planning, the planning commission, planning staff, on the phase one components of the legislation and we are revising the ordinance and breaking it into these four pieces as discussed in march and expect to introduce that at the board either this coming tuesday or potentially the tuesday beyond that. i want to circulate that a little bit to folks who have asked for it before we introduce it but most of that is fairly straightforward and very much along the lines of where the commission -- what the commission recommended in march. ordinances 5, 6 and 7, they're broken out here but they're all

very much -- first two, 5 and 6, related to port subjects for the most part and then the parking rate issue that i know we've discussed at some length here, really do require some additional -- some additional work by our office and i think even that may 8 date may be a little optimistic but we're working on those and will engage in additional meetings before those move forward and then finally on the -- the more long-term ordinance, the big c-3 compromise and then i did add the van ness f.a.r. bonus issue, as well, because that's relevant to this phase two discussion today, is really we're holding off on that pending ongoing work by the mayor's office of housing and other stakeholders on an update to the city's inclusionary laws which i know you-all will be deeply involved in, as well, president chu is keenly interested in that work and we see this f.a.r. bonus for

affordable housing as one of the many policy considerations that's going into that review. and then finally, ordinance 8, which we expect that we would move forward with after the commission is done reviewing these two items, would be combined into an ordinance that takes care of these other items. so that's where we are on the substantive piece. i want to mention briefly the van ness f.a.r. bonus because there was confusion about that over the last few days that i take responsibility for. when our office made a commitment earlier this year to separate out the c-3 compromise and the f.a.r. bonus for affordable housing in c-3, our intention was to separate out any f.a.r. bonus and not move forward with another one. the van ness bonus was part of the phase two discussion because we have other items related to the van ness s.u.d. which i'm sure we'll discuss today but it is our intention not to move

forward on that f.a.r. bonus until we do so with the larger inclusionary piece so wanted to make that point clear. in general, all of the previous agreement -- agreements that our office has made to planning staff recommendations on the items in phase two of this ordinance hold and i want reite. after planning staff goes through them if there are any recommendations, that you particularly like, need to discuss or respond to, i'd be happy to do so on any of the substantive issues that are part of today's discussion. thank you very much. vice president wu: thank you, mr. true. >> so today i'm going to present on phase two of the true legislation. as you recall, on march 1, you approved phase one which included clerical and minor modifications, transfer of development rights, limited

commercial users, bike park and signs. you voted to approve these topics and move them to the board on that date. phase two, today's topic on, includes changes to auto uses, limited corner commercial uses, or lccu's, accessory uses, nonconforming uses, the washington, broadway and waterfront s.u.d.'s and the van ness s.u.d. phase three, which includes the remainder of the legislation, will be considered on may 3. it was originally going to be considered on april 19. however, that will be continued next week. for my presentation on phase two, i'll cover each of the topics and provide a brief discussion on what is being proposed and where appropriate, staff's recommendation. the first topic in your executive summary is automotive uses. the first item under the category would prohibit surface parking lots in the c2, cm, c-3

and mcs districts. the department is recommending this provision be modified so surface parking is allowed as conditional use in existing districts, allowing conditional parking lots to continue to operate but require new surface parking lots to be reviewed by the commission on a case-by-case basis and we came to this recommendation based on the port's input. item two would require conditional use authorization on c-3 s districts and cm districts for enclosed parcel delivery districts. we recommend because this woulde consistent with the intent for a zoning districts. -- for a zoning districts. this would require a conditional use authorization to c3s and cm district. the department recommends approval because the changes consistent with the zoning districts. item four, prohibit storage

yards for commercial vehicles or trucks in cm or c3s the streets. the department recommends this be allowed because the use is consistent with the intent of the district. that is different from what is proposed in the legislation. item five deals with automobile service stations, often known as gas stations. we would exempt real service stations that are located on primary transit streets or citywide pedestrian networks streets from the requirements outlined in section 228 which limits the conversion of gas stations before -- limits the conversion of gas stations. before i spoke to, i passed out a map. -- to you, i passed out a map. the next topic is limited corner commercial uses. there are two changes that are proposed under this legislation.

the first would increase the distance these uses could be located from the corner. currently, it is 50 feet. the legislation would increase that to 100 feet. it would also increase the allowable use size to 2500 square feet. the supervisor's office does agree with our recommendation which is to limit it to what it is that there would like to do more community outreach in the future and go forth with us. they -- i am sorry. >>i is that out of the legislation? >> it is in the legislation still. they may move forward with it only if they can sell the community more. and the second change would require conditional use authorization in order to convert a dwelling unit to an

lccu. conditions are required to be reviewed under section 317. the department feels this requirement is duplicated and unnecessary. we are recommending that change not be added. the next topic on your executive summary is accessory uses. the first item would include the rc zoning district and the excess reuse control foresee, -- for c, and m. these are commercial district. the second item would remove specific numerical restrictions for accessory uses such as limits on hp and set performance based restrictions, then no noise, vibration, or unhealthful emissions beyond the premises in c and rc districts.

the legislation would increase to one third the square footage that they could occupy. it would remove any limit on the number of employees and accessory use -- that it could have. and permits accessories. the next topic is nonconforming usage. the first item deals with non conforming usage in a neighborhood commercial districts. currently, these uses can be changed to another use that is conditionally permitted in the district without conditional use authorization. the proposed legislation would require conditional use authorization if a non conforming use -- nonconforming use were to [inaudible] it brings consistency to how these uses are entitled in

commercial districts. the second deals with nonconforming uses in r districts. they're subject to termination, can -- without regard to dwelling density or of street parking. the legislation proposes any nonconforming use can be converted to an unspecified number of dwellings. we're going from one housing unit in r districts to -- our districts to district 4 that may be permitted. the department is concerned the but deflation remove the one unit limitation in place and the lack of review for group housing. we're recommending only one unit be allowed as of right now and group housing be eliminated from this section. the third item deals with surface parking lots in the c3 district. the legislation would remove the

provision in the code that allows surface parking lots in c3 districts to operate in perpetuity. the department supports this change because it is consistent with the downtown plan in the general plan. we are rec meinecke -- recommending clarifying language. i would like to point out that clarifying language in my executive summary is not t-- is correct when i list the recommendations. it spells out the use has to terminate within five years from this ordinance being adopted, not immediately. the next session is the washington broadway sud. another thing i would like to point out that was brought to my attention yesterday, the map included in your packet for the

washington-bred -- broadway sud has an error. legislation would not extend beyond columbus. anything beyond columbus that goes into chinatown, that would not be part of the washington- broadway sud. that makes item no. 2 in the staff report a moot point. we're concerned about wholesaling being allowed in residential district since the sud delong deryk stands into residential district. we're fine with keeping that -- sud extends into residential districts. item four would make surface parking lots nonconforming uses within the washington-broadway sud, otherwise there would have to seek a temporary use permit. the department recommends this provision be removed from the

legislation. last week under the section stat -- they are allowed to be waived in the waterfront. their character and location are similar and they should be subject -- able to take advantage of the waiver under section 161. finally we have the van ness sud. exempting affordable housing. they intended to strike this from the legislation so we can go ahead and ignore that. it will not be discussed. the second item removes the specifics in provisions from the van ness use district from the planning code and zoning map. this area would now be controlled by the provisions in section -- in se--

section 606. it would reduce the permitted height of projecting signs from 24 feett to 14 feet. the third and final item removes the one to one parking ratio on the ben s. -- on van ness ave. i do have to point out that there is a provision in the city's general plan that calls for a one to one parking along van ness ave. while this change is not consistent with that specific provision in the general plan, the department feels it is consistent on balance with the overall general plan and the city's transit first policy. with that, i'm available for questions. thank you. thank ycommissioner wu: thank y.

public comment on this item? kraska afternoon. i'm a resident of district 2. supervisor mark farrell is my supervisor. i have been working with his office and the planner regarding this legislation as it impacts the park and i read all these pages, 300 + pages and i have gotten most of my issues regarding jordan park's concerns addressed. i am putting on my other hat. i am a member of the japantown organizing committee and we had a meeting and i invited -- asked planning to please explain some of these things to the japantown team. after going through a lot of trying to get people to show up, i was told that tom is the expert on this. he is the only one who showed up

to help the japantown organizing committee. he was very helpful on some of the questions we had. one of the things you're discussing today is the limited corner commercial use and in japantown, i think the legislation reads currently, it is up to 1200 square feet with a bump of 1200 square feet would would be the old version, a total of 2400 square feet. the proposed is a base of 2500 and if you have to corners within one block, you can bump up an additional 1200 which means a maximum for building with two corners on the same block as 3750 or whatever the mouth is. -- math is. it might be a concern for existing businesses. maybe the size might affect current businesses depending on what might move in. that is an issue that still needs to be discussed.

i was looking for some planning department person to help the organizing committee. i hope that could be done soon because i guess now the calendar has changed. the confusion in the beginning was we were given different dates for these phases and what would be discussed in what meeting. that is why i stayed until now because i was not sure if i should stay. i left a couple of times and came back. with all the confusion and would hope you keep this comment open. i agree with planning department's recommendation to not go ahead and close, -- comment in the r district. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. our next speakers.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. we represent priority parking which operates various surface parking lots in the downtown area. we want to remind you that priority parking strongly objects to the proposed elimination of a longstanding grandfathering. there appears to be an assumption operators would have no problem obtaining permits. there is no guarantee of that. please do not disregard the cumbersome appeals process. we have appealed. we respectfully request that you recommend the grandfathering provision remain in place. market conditions should dictate when it is appropriate for these

lots to be developed in the future. at a minyou accept staff recommendation that the temporary period extended to five years. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. nicks speakers. -- next speakers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. executive director of global cities here to speak in favor of the legislation. i wanted to speak about the accessory in c districts. we heard about the restaurant controls and we can create a great environment for locally owned small businesses. we worked with with -- with kate and she could not be here today. she could have spoken for another three minutes and have been much more eloquent than i. the intent was to look at

businesses that in these next use -- makes use differences, businesses are mixing uses. they have an office and retail use together in the same space. all those uses are principally permitted in most of these districts. by eliminating this one quarter accessory, you put a crimp on those businesses growing and changing. these could be the superstar businesses of tomorrow. if they want to have a wholesale, they want to start selling to other businesses, that is a production use or wholesale use, that might take additional space. they could grow and thrive in the city and giving them more room i think in the code was the intent of this ordinance, to help those unique types of businesses grow. i know a lot of neighborhood commercial districts are interested in this. the small production alongside a retail use. this is an attempt to bring into those c district another

increment of flexibility to allow those uses to thrive. we looked at and other performance measures. no one is going to go out and measure the horsepower of a machine. enforcement is very complete driven. the idea of putting in -- that is responsive to the with the planning department does enforcement and addresses the impact that these businesses could have on neighbors rather than limit some hp which ends of being kind of arbitrary. i wanted to talk about the public sunset. the parking sunset, something we are supportive to. livable city and the building trades are together in this one. this is very clearly within the intent of the general plan and if you'll look at what the general plan says about parking lot, this is a surfer slot, that they are a blight and these are the sites where we should be

putting housing. we think the soft nudge to these property owners to every five years and we agree with the five-year extension look at these properties and station in develop these or keep these as surface lots? it will get these sites into the uses the downtown plan called for. you can build parking, that is permitted. we think this nudges us in the right direction. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. >> good afternoon, i wanted to speak out in support of the recommendation for the change in the automotive uses for the c2 district. as it would be, it was prohibiting surface parking lots. the change is to allow for surface parking lots