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 is we're fine with the recommendation to leave it as it is. is just -- it is a map issue. there is no interest on our part in moving forward until we make a commission comfortable with that or abandon it. that would be my thought. in terms of -- i think at this point, as we approach the one- year anniversary of the introduction of the legislation, i do believe we are past the 90- day clock. we're not going to move anything contrary to the schedule. i outlined it was as i spoke today. -- when i first spoke today.

we want to keep working on it as much as you all see fit. we think especially on these, what we see as the three phases that are the core and the more controversial pieces we peeled off, we would like to move those. >> for this peace today, -- piece today, what is the next phase of the public process? >> we would not do anything with this until phase three moves out of the commission and those who are forgetting -- those who are getting redrafted, and that would be introduced at the board as substitute legislation and there would be a process at the board for that. that is our plan right now. we're open to other suggestions.

>> we're drafting in something different. >> it is not so much -- it is not redrafting. the only redrafting comes where we make consistent ordinance with the planning staff for that and in other cases the attorney is working on that. that is typical of planning commission procedure. >> people here may want to continue to engage. my email -- phone is [unintelligible] in room 264, easy to find. >> you are suggesting possible action on the mapping changes that the mapping change is related to washington-broadway and [inaudible]

would be continued for future discussion and debate, clarification. there are other changes in there, one being removal of the van ness special signed district. that should be handled today by the commission because there is a corresponding text change that removes the special sign district from the planning code. i would suggest the commission continued the map changes but take action on the -- continue the map changes. removing that as a special sign district. the other language will be removed if you apply -- if you approve. >> we are not wedded to that. you see a place where these orphan blocks should be consistent. because of what they have become, consistent with the zoning district next to them

but all these efforts are coming up related to that, as long as the staff is fine with that and the commission is fine with it. we're not heavily -- that is not one of the policy changes we see as more important in the legislation. if it is the commission's pleasure we would be happy to work with the supervisors on those parcels and the parcel near cortland and bayshore, to make them make agree with relevant parts of the code. we're fine with that. whatever the commission would like to do there. commissioner moore: mr. -- i would like to restate my point. this commission is supposed to receive accurate approvable and supportable material week ahead of time. since we are not full-time employed, to be supportive to

your longstanding efforts, we have to have something in front of us that we can read and get a reasonable explanation, half public comment, asked a couple of questions but be there to support or disapprove. this process to me is so flawed that i find it impossible with so many holes in what is front of me to support you in a manner and for the reasons why i was put here. this is basically work which is not sit -- acceptable. it is for that reason i have to repeat that unless the work which is delivered and which you worked behind the scenes and work on probably day and night, when it comes to us, it has to have the main questions answered, and has to have the right maps, it has to be able to be seen by the public. it is for that reason i have to repeat it.

please help in the next phase of whatever interim phase is you have that what is in front of us in deed is ready for prime time. -- indeed is ready for prime time. >> my point would be that we have been working on the legislation for some time. 95 percent of it really is ready for prime time. as i suggested related to the sud's because of the map error, something that was caught. we have no interest in moving forward on anything of which there is a question like that. the vast majority of the staff recommendations on the items before you today are within very much something that we would like to move forward with and we're proud of and we would like to see a change in the code for the betterment of the planning code and the city. we're open to any course of action. if there is a feeling that phase two would be pushed to the date we have for phase 3 and phase three would be later, that is

fine. whatever the commission's pleasure is, we wou to move this forward. commissioner miguel: yes, i regretfully am going to have to withdraw my motion and take you up on your last suggestion, that recommendations both of this commission and the department be drafted into the legislation as well as any other comments you might get. and that it come back to us at the time designated for phase three when we can actually understand what we have in front of us. there are too many questions at (ivpr >>d?ñ? basically, your prior mn is withdrawn and this is a motion for you continuing this until the next date, which would be may 3rd?

>> that would be my motion, is that a sufficient? >> we would have this on a later date, not at the$h same date. >> the item that you have on next week's calendar would be a phase three. i am assuming that you are going to continue this out to a date beyond may 3rd. >> that is the recommendation. >> i already think this is on the agenda. >> this is either tonight or early tomorrow morning so that when i finalize your calendar, it will have a different date on it. >> ok. >> maybe we can get the commission to clarify some of the points. we understand the mapping issue. other issues that you would like

more thoroughly addressed? >> is there any way to clarify the cm? >> yes, it does not appear that these are within the area but we can get more discussions. one of the parcels is, the ones that are there are ready to unchanging. we are making more restrictive what can be done there. that seems like a good transitional step there at least. certainly, we can do more zoning analysis of what the zoning should be for those. it does not do any harm to these parcels and is a good transitional step. >> if it can be presented that way. >> it sursure.

>> we spoke to the van ness parking issue. i am supportive of there being no minimum but on some maximum, some projects might require one to one parking. this is especially in view of the 321 in tournament with housing and commercial. there might be those kind of projects that come forward. >> i would like to hear more and some specific examples and how it is interpreted given that you have a contemporary space which is easy to subdivide. particularly, the appearance of an active production use on a store front might be a complicating.

>> the items that we are continuing today are not necessarily related to phase 3. >> our goal is to group them in the items that are similar. >> i am trying to argue against making this even further. >> we will break it up into groups and make it more digestible. >> if we continue this throughout next week. >> phase 3 is scheduled for next week. this is to be scheduled out to the next hearing in may when we

had proposed to continue this and then we will bomb phase three. >> especially three weeks from now. >> we would be perfectly happy and i will put more into making sure. we are happy to have this on may 3rd. i am open to either scenario. >> i would say no. if the commission would indulge us to break it out further. this has been a lot of work and i appreciate all the efforts that have been put into this. this was introduced a year ago

and they put a substantial amount of work on this. >> as you consider the days to consider, please do not continue this until the 24th of may. >> that is correct. >> i am assuming that the second on the motion -- so says >> i want to continue this on a day that i am not here. [laughter] >> the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item to may 3rd. this is phase two. on that motion > --

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye,. \ >> aye. course on i. lee, is there a day? >> may 3rd. >> may 3rd? -- >> for item 12 b, is there a day? >> may 3rd. >> may 3rd? >> yes. >> on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> the item passes. we are now on to item number 13, amendments to the san francisco planning code and zoning map sheet su08 to establish the ninth straight power retell special use district for a property located at 555 9th street. >> thank you. this is zoned urban mixed use and it requires a conditional use for formula retail establishment. the property is located within the district with pr

prohibits new advertising signs. it does have maximum property requirements. what the legislation would do what it establish an sud and it would permit forma retail there. it removed the maximum parking limits and it would exempt it from the assigned district controls and the department supports the establishment of the ninth street power retell special sud because these were created to protect the districts within the commercial districts and the shopping center is

internally focused and presents an and actable size to the broader neighborhood and has none of the qualities that are districts which restrict the use. for these reasons, in forcing this does not make sense. however, the department is not find any justification for exempting as from the controls or from implementing this from the zoning district maximum controls and we agree with the small business commission that there should be some use size limits on the property. therefore, the staff's recommendation is to remove a section from the ordinance which would exempt the proposed sud from the special signed district, and then another section said that this is still subject to the maximum parking control and to allow the existing 330 parking spaces to

remain regardless of future use and change and adding a 90,000 square foot trigger which would require cu for any use about 90,000 square feet. that comes from a use size limit. that is how we came up with that. >> i will make this brief. i wanted to give a brief introduction of our intent in introducing the legislation that you have before you. the legislation introduced recognizes the existing uses at 5559 street, is currently houses known stores such as bed bath and beyond. this ordinance would create a special use district that would

include only the subject parcel and would principally promote the sud. this has primarily retail establishments and we believe that this is an appropriate use. after some discussion, we agreed to amend the legislation to require this for any single use about 75,000 square feet which is based on the square footage of the largest tenant currently. we have reviewed the planning staff recommendations and agreed with increasing this to 90,000 square feet to provide consistency. we will amend the legislation to that effect as well and thank you for your consideration in reviewing this legislation. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners.

this is to allow what has been there for 20 years. this is permitting what currently exists at the retail center in the district. this is a brief overview, this is the current site plan. of the center and some of the current tenants are bed bath and beyond. and this is a small business that would bring business to the center.

and it the center has no plans for any physical changes. there will be no changes in the center or for the use. this will remain a retail center for reform of the retail tenants. this has been a very strong economic engine for the city. it generates tax revenue of over $5 million. it is an important city for the center and for the residence and once again it does have a handle affect on neighboring businesses including the top area, the house of louis, and this is an important center for the city. this will not have a negative impact on any existing neighborhood serving retail uses. we respect -- we requested the

planning commission to support this legislation. the project owner has agreed to the recommendations of the plan department and has no plans to increase parking. there are no plans to put on any general advertising other than the existing tenants and has agreed to the 90,000 square foot trigger for any conditional use authorization. we urge your support and i'm available for any comments. thank you. it is any further public comment on this item? collected the staff pull file for when this site was created and read the history of the site? my guess is no because i sat through the hearing and it was a fairly long and protracted process. i was in the room, i was not

heavily involved but there was a lot of staff concerns about how there would not be windows facing the street originally and the original proposal and so the staff made a proposal that you still have to have windows. anyone who knows this site knows they are totally blocked off. so, what was the commission's thought process when they spent hours and hours and hours on this 125 years ago? i know it was a very contentious hearing and a very contentious process because this is a suburban mall type of facility. the initial proposal to take it to the c-three standard shows that there was not a whole lot of thought given. that was something like macy's, which the original proposal was greater than the uses currently

there. one of the things i think would be good for staff to do is to read the files, when zoning like this is created, and not his command and say, this is a reasonable course. what was the intention? i am a trader joe's person. i have no bias against shopping there. i shop there all the time. i know what the city planning commission was looking at this site as and saying that we will not do in san francisco these types of malls and it was a very troublesome process getting it through. now, it will go through without checking what we were trying to do. i think it is sometimes valuable to go back and these files were available. and it