create a transit center that is for all of san francisco. specifically on the issue of shadows, i've heard a lot about this notion of diffused shadows. i wonder if anyone has photos or any other kind of more visual representation of what that means. what is a reduced shadow, a hard shatter? it is hard to see what the quality of the park will be without that. also in regard to reduced shadows, it is important to talk about use and not just percentages. a.m. to 9:00 a.m. is an important time for the park. it is where seniors do tai chi. it is important to understand how the park functions.

in other projects where we have accepted the shadows, there has been over riding public benefit. there was a senior housing project on portsmouth. i want to mark that. there is a great transit center plan. but it does have this impact on the neighborhood park. what is the right sort of public benefit to offset that? i had some questions around the 35%. i wanted to clarify the 35% is for the affordable housing requirement in the entire transit center district plan, and not only transbay zone 1. >> actually, it is neither. it is for the project area, which is within the transit center district plan. but there is also parts of the district plan outside of the

redevelopment district. vice president wu: thank you. commissioner miguel: i know there is probably a little additional comment, but i would like to move a resolution of intent on 11a to initiate amendments to the general plan, on 11b to initiate amendments to the planning code, and on 11c to initiate amendments to the zoning maps, as purvey materials presented to us. commissioner antonini: i had some other comments. i thought this was a very good hearing. this is hearing to reestablish san francisco as the business center of the western united states.

what you have is a combination of dense housing at all income levels, some of it very marketable, many forms of transportation, and close access to recreation, institutions, civic, and medical, which is what we envisioned when we started this concept in the downtown area of san francisco. if this is done correctly, i think it is going to be wonderful. just as we are seeing a movement in the last few years where people choose to live in smaller spaces and want to live in urban areas, because they have decided that living most of their lives on freeways commuting from suburban areas does not make a lot of sense. i think businesses are going to come to the realization they will want to locate in attractive areas. i think those powers that are built for businesses will be

inhabited by many businesses that may now be in suburban areas. maybe their entire operation will be located there. as far as the law -- the question of what we are giving back, obviously, the 35% affordable, the inclusion of parks, the transportation -- this project gives a lot back to the city. i think if there were to be a shadow some place, i think there are plenty of things we are giving back to the common good that will be an offset for any shadows that might exist. but we will have to look at that situation when it comes before us. commissioner moore: when you described the site intensification, you talked about soft site analysis, together with the issue of land use mix and downtown capacity. you specifically addressed the capacity for zoning and rezoning. i am curious as to whether or

not, by creating the areas, you look at infrastructure capacity and civic infrastructure capacity. infrastructure capacity is below ground, and civic structure -- when you have been suffocation -- have densification, you have additional needs for schools and community centers. i wanted to hear whether that was part of your plans are not. -- or not. >> two aspects to the response. our general capacity analysis was not an analysis as to whether 20 million additional square feet could be sustained with existing infrastructure. it was purely a matter of whether there was space for the capacity under existing zoning. this plan is an example, as with

other plans we do, of taking a look at a section of that area and doing a comprehensive plan so we create the necessary infrastructure to support the growth, at least for that area. this plan, like other plans -- market octavia, the central corridor plan -- we are doing that comprehensive planning for those areas. that is in the context of these upswings. we do them to increase capacity and address those other issues. regarding things like the sewers, police, and fire, some of those are engaged through the environmental review process. the sfpc and other agencies review. if there are other issues, but our flag. we have engaged various departments such as the sf puc, talking about the future of the

plan area and trying to address their institutional goals. through this plan and the growth anticipated, we have addressed all of those issues. >> the reason i am saying that -- if i would be a land owner and i already anticipate large contributions in other areas described in your plan, these hidden costs will make it difficult, because you can only put so many additional fees on something before it starts to be a sinkhole. with some anticipation, i say there will be hidden costs that have not been brought forward at the moment. -- commissioner moore: president fong: are there additional comments? >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval of initiation of all components, the general plan amendments, the planning code, and the zoning maps -- the initiation.

actually, you are initiating. on that motion, including the amendments that were put for you today. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> that passes unanimously. president fong: we are going to take a short break, 20 minutes. >> the commission iss >> president fong needs to be recused, so we will call them separately.

12a is about the use of signs, building features, floor area ratio, parking, and compliance unspecified use districts. >> i will be presenting phase two of the chiu legislation that was continued from a couple of weeks ago. this features accessory uses, non-conforming uses, and the washington and broadway sud's. phase 3 will be continued on may 17. step has removed amendments from phase 2 to phase 3 to allow more time to analyze it, so it will not be included in this portion. we thought for my presentation today i would go through it section by section. after i am done with the

section, i will allow you an opportunity to ask questions and with that focus. then, you can have follow-up questions at the end. the first topic is automotive uses. the department agrees with many of the proposed changes. however, we have asked for modifications to proposed changes that are not consistent with the zoning category, or would impact report's ability to fulfill its obligations. the first item would prohibit the surface parking lots in some districts. the department is recommending this provision be modified so that supervising critics of the sue for it -- so the surface parking lots are allowed to continue to operate. it would require new parking lots to be reviewed on a case- by-case basis.

item 2 below would require conditional use authorization in some districts for inclosed parcel delivery service. the department requests approval, because it is consistent with the district. item three would prevent broad storage uses in some districts and require a conditional use authorization in others. the department recommends approval because the change is consistent with the intent of the respective zoning districts. item four would prohibit storage areas for commercial vehicles in some districts. however, the department recommends this use be allowed to be granted a conditional use the authorization, because the use is consistent with the intent of the district. >> item 5 deals with the automobile service stations, also known as gas stations. it would exempt those on

primary transit seats from the requirements outlined in section 228, which limits their conversion. that is the first section. i am happy to take questions, if you have them, or i can move on to the next one. all right. the next section is limited corner commercial uses. there are two changes proposed under this ordinance. 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. it would also increase from 1200 square feet to 2500 square feet. this was developed as part of a multi-year planning effort, and we made a commitment to the community cannot amend without thorough examination. in response to department concerns, the supervisor has agreed to modify this provision

for the district of side of the market and octavia plan, which is where the department had a concern. you can consider that in your vote. the second change would require conditional use authorization to convert a dwelling unit into an lccu. these are already reviewed under section 317. the department finds this provision duplicated and unnecessary and recommend a change. those are the changes under lccu's. any questions? president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: staff is recommending against the changes or against the provision entirely? it was a change that was going to allow it to be 100 feet from the corner and increase the square footage. >> we are recommending against the change to the legislation as

it is currently drafted, because we made the commitment to the community that we would not change it for five years, and would go through a review process. in response to that, the supervisor has agreed to leave the market octavia parcel alone, but changed it in other districts, which i think our -- are rm-3, and some other south of market. he is deciding to increase it to 100 feet from the corner and 2500 sq. feet for all the lccu's that are not in the market octavia plan. commissioner antonini: and that is all right with staff? >> it is better than the original. we would like it thrown out, but if that is a compromise -- commissioner antonini: or we could not approve and leave it as it is. >> you could just not do it.

commissioner antonini: i will think about it. >> ok. commissioner sugaya: some blocks -- what is the average block? is it 400 feet? >> i think the width is 500 some odd feet, and 250 feet on the short end is the usual. commissioner sugaya: if it is 100 feet, it is practically the entire block in certain areas. >> if a store rents a space on the ground floor that covers the whole lot, they would have to not use 50 feet of the floor. that is the reason for the increase, as well as the floor area, actually. president fong: other question?

next item. >> the next section is accessory uses. the perce item would include the -- first item would include rc zoning districts, which are residential-commercial districts located in areas like van ness and the tenderloin. it would remove numerical restrictions and in said stet -- set performance-based restrictions such as noise level. the legislation would also increase from one quarter -- from 1/4 to 1/3 the space occupied. it would also remove number of employees. it also removes intent of the

primitive accessories. i have put in a chart that hopefully explains the intent behind this. you can see the districts that are primarily residential and the districts that are mixed use. those that are residential are 1/4, and those that are excess reduces our 1-- accessory uses are 1/3. that is it for a successor uses, if you have any questions. -- for accessory uses, if you have any questions. commissioner antonini: the staff position? >> we are for it. we see the logic of making it more representational. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> the next section is non- conforming uses. this deals with neighborhood commercial districts. currently, uses can change to another use in that district, if

it is conditionally permitted, without the conditional use authorization. this would require conditional use authorization if a non- conforming use changes to something. this brings consistency to how these uses are entitled in various districts. the second item deals with other districts. currently, they can convert to a dwelling unit without complying with density or off street parking. we propose that any nonconforming use can be converted to an unspecified number of dwelling units in a district where such use is principally permitted, without regard to the requirements of the code with respect to residential density or of street parking requirements. the department is concerned the legislation removes the 1-minute limitation that is currently in place, and the lack of review.

we are recommending that only one unit be allowed. this would remove a new provision in the code that allows surface parking lots in c3 to operate within perpetuity. we support this use, because it is consistent with the general plan. we would like clarifying language to be added, and would like these uses to come back for a temporary use permit every five years instead of every two years. those are the issues under non- conforming uses. commissioner moore: i appreciate your looking at it more carefully. i would agree. >> last section -- washington- broadway and the waterfront

special use district. there was confusion last time about the boundaries of this. the confusion came from the legislative by just had one description, and the legislation did something else. the map you were originally had -- this combines uses. that is a brief explanation of that. it would allow residential parking to be waived. item for wood to make surface parking lots nonconforming uses.

--t item 4 would make surface parking lots nonconforming uses. the legislation's would allow off street parking requirement to be waived, the waterfront. that concludes the items. i can answer questions about that as well. commissioner wu: is this the right time to ask about the broadway district? can you just explain -- >> it is in the next item. commissioner wu: i can hold my

question. commissioner moore: when you are suggesting combining washington and broadway, that means you are leaving chinatown out, correct? the reason i am asking, by combining, you are deleting one comment -- one, they are not identical. they are -- that is the reason why they are two districts. by leaving out the north side west of columbus, it becomes an altogether different thing. just for disclosure, it needs to be explained for exactly how we are combining, what is common to both, what is different. >> if you look at page 4, the chart, that shows what the

washington-broadway sud does. item a >> sense of street parking requirements -- exempts of street parking requirements. the one exception is development on lots that are larger than 20,000 square feet in the chinatown community business district. removing it would have little impact on eds. in addition to that, phase three would eliminate minimum parking requirements in the chinatown district. commissioner moore: doesn't mean that cars would only push the

congest and further out? isn't that what it means? >> i think chinatown does not have that much parking and it. -- in it. there is very little required parking in chinatown. the washington-broadway was done in the 1980's we were still trying to deal with that sort of issue. commissioner moore: may i disagree with you? in the block between columbus up towards the tunnel, where there is double, triple parking all the time. public right of way is blocked for the lack of parking in that area and it is a misnomer to say that it is all transit. it is not. >> i am sorry if you understood that was the way i was saying.

chinatown does not require parking. by removing it from the washington-broadway sud, you are not changing much in that respect. commissioner moore: i do not agree with that assessment. >> the provisions are already in place in chinatown. by removing chinatown, we are not having any net change on that. the underlying provisions would still remain in effect. it may sound like there is a broader issue, it there is not a large enough parking requirement in chinatown, and maybe that is something to look at. commissioner moore: that's might be one way of addressing it. there is somewhat of a requirement not being met. many people come to this location for going to large

restaurants. there are coming from the suburbs and they are searching to park somewhere. that is creating an area of the contest in which is not addressed by current zoning. -- ingestion which is not addressed by current zoning. >> currently, the washington- probably provides for certain parking exemptions. this is unnecessary because the underlying chinatown zoning design require parking. granting an exemption where parking is not required does not make sense. we are looking at addressing this overlapping code provision that does not make much sense. what you are speaking to or greater concerns about overall parking concerns in chinatown. the change we are making would have no effect on that. commissioner moore: current trends continued to take the current position and expand them? >> currently, parking in

chinatown does not require -- is generally not required in the zoning district. the special u.s. district provides exemptions from parking requirements. there is no point of having exemptions when you do not have a parking requirement to begin with. i know it does not make a lot of sense, but that is why we are trying to change it. it gives an exemption were parking is not required. the second, it does not permit customer service areas like drive-throughs and things like that. in chinatown, they did not allow that either. it is another redundant control. >> because we have a

commissioner -- >> i am referring to b in my report. >> i want to make sure that we are clear. >> the third one requires a parking lot or a storage garage to get a conditional use from the planning commission. again, another redundant control. either require a conditional use or prohibit it. that really has little impact. there is one aspect of excess free parking lots are permitted. they still would be, so if there is concern at of accessory parking lots going in to chinatown, which staff does not

see as a huge problem, if there is a concern, you can make that part of your motion. and then the final talks about wholesale establishments. that is only for the washington- broadway sud. that was the only difference between washington-broadway sud 1 and 2. commissioner moore: on page 13, the way it would be, it would no longer permit permanent parking lots. why is it only two years