these kinds of things are not as easily changeable. >> right now, downtown is a two- year temporary use permit as well. we are recommending that it be changed to 5. for the surface parking lots in the washington-broadly, we are not asking that they be prohibited. we are asking they be conditional use instead. the only way you could have one would be through a temporary use permit. commissioner moore: i am still questioning why it is two years. >> the staff recommendation differs from the proposal. we are recommending that rather than prohibiting, it's become a conditional use permit under staff's recommendation, there would not be a two-year having

to come back to the commission. i do understand what you are saying. we have recommended elsewhere that the to your change to five years. -- two-year change to five years. commissioner moore: did to comment on that? i do not think i heard them. >> that was the last item that i did. i might have rushed through. currently, parking can be waived by the zoning administrator in the waterfront sud 1 and 3. this legislation would change it so that the waterfront assud2 could get parking waivers. commissioner antonini: on the issue regarding the 2 to 5

years, will be the case if the temporary parking lot is not approved? it would have to just be vacant. or whatever they choose to do. >> correct. if they can back to do a temporary parking lot for five years on the commission decided not to grant it, they could not operate a surface parking lot there. commissioner antonini: i understand the intent to try to nudge development, but i am not sure every two years would be cumbersome. it seems the five-year might be the better solution. >> we are not recommending that they be prohibited, so -- if you took the staff's recommendation, it would be a non-issue for surface parking lot. commissioner antonini: ok, i

think i understand what you are saying. thank you. >> any other questions? ok. anything further? public comment. >> good afternoon. executive director. on this issue of the washington- broadway sud, it does not come anywhere near port property. i did not understand why they have objected. i understand their concerns about parking restrictions in the waterfront, but the washington-broadway is a few blocks from the nearest port parcel. i would urge you to support that.

five years is more reasonable. this is the jackson square area. golden gateway lies between the port. we would urge you to support that, but with a five-year pro weisel. -- proviso. per our previous discussion, talking about jobs and housing needs, one of the balances is trying to nudge those lots towards development so we can jobs and housing. create some incentives for those developments. we think it is a balanced package. we would urge you to make that

change. i guess that is all i have to say. thank you for listening to these presentations and the excellent questions. the other thing about the china down districts, right now -- chinatown district, right now, there are minimum parking requirements in the district. this amendment does propose to get rid of them. section 161 permits exceptions. it permits exceptions for the washington-broadly, at another section permits exceptions in the chinatown sud. there are reduplicate sections in 161. both sections are not needed. you just need one. if the issue is the maximum should be, how much parking is

permitted, that is not what is before you today. the question is for those projects that do not think any parking, can they get the exceptions? there is no substantive change there. thank you very much. >> any additional public comment? commissioner miguel: i appreciate the explanation from staff because key as we have been going to this legislation -- because as we have been gone for this legislation, it was very difficult to try to take it and comprehensively. what is going on and what supervisor chu has gone into putting it into three separate sections has been very helpful to this commission and certainly

to this commissioner. i also appreciate the work that staff has done on edge because it clarifies a number of issues. at least in my mind. i find myself very much in agreement with the staff's recommendations on this. i do not think they fly in the face of what supervisor is trying to do. i fully support staffs recommendations on this. i totally appreciate the amount of work that it takes. the initial work on the continuing work. commissioner moore: can i would like to say that the motion in

front of us does not reflect staff's recommendation, which surprised me. i am in support of the majority of staff's recommendation, but that language is not reflected in the motion in front of us. i am not quite sure how we do this. i know that what you're trying to instruct us, it would need to be rephrased. i might be wrong on that. the other thing i would like to ask, i would like to have all waterfront sud considerations taken out and brought back to us when we talk about the other waterfront issues. on page 13, the parking

exceptions in the waterfront sud. i would like to consider that under a separate discussion. >> i do not know if we can do that. commissioner antonini: i was going to try to make a motion on these items. i see commissioner wu has some comments. commissioner wu: generally -- specifically, i think there is some indication that it could be real looked at. i think the logic does not follow right now. the actual changes look like they're trying to make them like some of the other districts, but the name of it is kind of funny.

this report answers a lot of the questions that we had from the last hearing. that is very helpful, but it took a long time for us to get here. i just want to reiterate that i think the direction from the commission is this prodi legislation has been too complex and has covered too many issues. we've got into a place where we can distill it much better. thank you for this report, but it was difficult to get here. >> this has come a long way in breaking it up and boiling it down has made it easier for all of us to understand. but it is still confusing to some degree. i think we will get emotion to support, but i want to clarify -- gets a motion to support, but i want to clarify.

if we move this forward, it does not mean the others go any faster. commissioner antonini: i agree with what has been said by the other commissioners. thank you for making it much more palatable that we can digest. i will try to make a motion that supports what staff has recommended. on the first part of this, and we would be saying that on surface parking, we will allow that by cu. is that correct? >> correct. commissioner antonini: one would assume that cu is allowed, but doesn't have to be renewed in a

certain period of time? >> no. commissioner antonini: we are ok with the parcel delivery provisions with the garage storage provision, storage yards, and with the gas stations. that is part of the motion. we move on to the limited corner commercial uses. my understanding from what staff has recommended is to just delete the movement from the corner 100 feet. leave it as it is currently in place. >> correct. commissioner antonini: the surface dwelling unit conversion position, that was a no on that part. the second portion of that.

>> not requiring additional. commissioner antonini: it is duplicitous because you already have that. and then we go to accessory items regarding hp situations and things like that, which we are supporting of as drafted. >> correct. commissioner antonini: and then we get to nonconforming uses, and we are requiring a cu for a nonconforming use even if -- maybe you can clarify that. >> if you have a nonconforming use, you can change to any use. without having to go through the process. this would change that to require to go to the conditional use process. commissioner antonini: that seems consistent.

that is fine. nonconforming dwelling unit conversion to housing, delete a group housing, delete multiple units. when-tenant -- one-unit use only. >> correct. commissioner antonini: ok. the surface, we will allow that to buy cu, a temporary use for five years. the same thing with the washington-broadway sud, the same kind of provision with a five-year renewal. >> that is our recommendation. commissioner antonini: it seems consistent that we are not in here every two years.

i realize we want to get them out of having parking lots, but it might be a little too much process. >> you would want them to be prohibited in the washington- broadway sud? and have to come back five years? commissioner antonini: we do want them to be allowed by cu, but every five years instead of every two years. >> they do not have to come back. if you take staff's recommendation, they are conditionally permiteted. commissioner antonini: maybe we will go with status condition on that. i am a little confused, but that would be fined. -- fine. i believe that is all that, if i am not mistaken. ok. commissioner moore: while we are

moving to support you and the legislation, i would still ask about the documents will be checked one more time for consistency in terms of how words and dates and issues are looked at as part of what we are considering today. i still see the reference to bte waterfront special use district in there. that is the front page of the draft resolution. you are capturing the majority of your recommendations, but i want to make sure that you go through this. >> i will be happy to do this. i usually listen to the hearing

again. on the front part, that is the entire legislation and. that is the standard way we do it. commissioner moore: i do not see any reference to phase 2. >> when you get to the whereas's, it specifies what phase 2 is. on page two, all the way down at the bottom. commissioner moore: i am asking you to just check it one more time. thank you. >> i will second consistent to our discussions. >> [inaudible] >> in the other questions? ok. >> the motion on the floor is for approval.

staff has presented today and as you have understood it and recounted, the motion. i cannot restate that. i apologize. on that motion -- [roll call vote] that motion passes 6-1. commissioners, we are now at item 12b. >> i move to recuse.

>> second. >> i would like to hear a reason, please. >> due to a relationship that i have with the property at fisherman's wharf. this is within 500 feet of that property and address. thank you for asking. >> there is the motion and the second. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president fong: >> ok, these are d amendments for the legislation. the first one deals with the washington-broadway special use district. the second one deals with the waterfront special used district. this would move certain parcels

from sud 2 and 3, so they corresponded to some sub-areas. it would also take a few lots better not included and the waterfront sud. staff is recommending that the first part, which would move the boundaries of boundaries ofsud to correspond with the general plan out of the legislation at the request of the port. we do not feel it is necessary. they fill it complicates the waterfront sud design process. and we agree with that. the second part, which would could a couple of blocks into the -- it creates more consistency in that section of the city.

the broadway in special sign district, it can be kind of confusing. there is a description of the district that limits it to the broadway st. on the north east side of columbus. unfortunately, when they changed that, they did not change the map. what this legislation does is to correct the error. it is not a substantial change, but he brings consistency. i believe those are all the changes we took out. the van ness will be heard on the phase three. >> thank you. is theirere public comment on

this item? >> i just -- the changes to the broadway sign district, we had a meeting at their request that we clarified this. before the rezoning in the 1980's was c2. it also ended up in the sign district. the code was written, so it only applies for some of those parcels along broadway. the zoning map was not changed. when we met with land developers, they suggested, we have our special sign controls in chinatown. they felt like this broadway sud is incompatible with where they want to go with the neighborhoods and with the residential character. that is why it is curtailed.

there is this corner that was added. if you look at the way the zoning districts lineup, there are to parcels on the north side. we are adding that to the waterfront sud3. they are in design district, the historic district, c2 district. now they will have all the same zoning controls as the adjacent. to strain on some historic discrepancies -- to straighten out some historic discrepancies. commissioner wu: any further public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner miguel: in spite of trying to get your head around this, this is clarification of mistakes in the past more than anything else.

unless someone can correct me on that. it creates consistency and i do not think makes any earthshaking changes, so i would move approval of staff's recommendations. >> i will second. commissioner antonini: that staff recommendation has declared the waterfront parcels out of the legislation. >> yes. >> do you have the overhead? thank you. >> this is the proposed -- some of these parcels are in the waterfront sud3. we are asking they be kept in here. there're a couple of c2 lots

that are not. we artist -- we are saying they should be added as part of the legislation. commissioner antonini: i understand that as part of the motion. >> in the staff report that we got, i believe the proposed conditions are different. >> that is correct. our oasis team was not able to put together the map in time. >> the larger amount is correct? >> the larger map is the correct one. >> ok. >> the motion on the floor is for approval for staff recommendation. [roll call vote]

thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, we are now on item 13. 640 hayes street. >> i am not sure the project sponsor is here yet. commissioner moore: continue it. >> [inaudible]

>> this is a neighbor initiated dr for 640 hayes street. the proposal is to legalize some work done. adding another unit to the project. my understanding is that the request and the project sponsor have meant an come to an agreement to resolve, but the request for one of the commission to put the conditions

on the dr itself. that is what it was not withdrawn. that is pretty much my presentation. >> [inaudible] >> i am going to move for a continuance. >> can we possibly take a 10- minute break? >> no, we are not taking a break. >> [inaudible] >> we are going to start. we will keep going.

>> i own the property behind this building. the three people who would be talking today the neighbors on both sides -- unfortunate, he will give the request that we have to try to put these into the plants. we made a concerted effort over the last month and a half to get together. at every instance along that way, we had obstacles, they did not call back, they said we would come to the meeting. at this juncture, we wanted to come to you today, and to have a piece of paper that was an agreement between us