will be the construction walkway right in front of the hospital itself. recently, on the city college campus in chinatown, there actually was no walkway in front of the building itself. i think that created a great hazard for the people in the neighborhood. i wanted to point out that on gentrification, i liked seeing that there was someone dedicated post-construction for what they call transportation demand management. i think that that kind of, providing that technical assistance to employees that work on the hospital or people who are patrons of the hospital, are very helpful to get people in the habit of using transit if they were not previously. i think that will be important

for the success of this project. that is my question for now. commissioner antonini: i too read the letter from the hpc. i am in agreement with a lot of what is stated in there. the design concerns they have with the replacement structure in no way has any impact on the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the eir, which is, of course, all of those things. they make some points the we have to look at as we go forward. of course, we do have all of the necessary alternatives, including the parcel preservation project, the preferred project. we have a lot of things to choose from. of course, that will move forward at a later time. as far as the report itself, it seems to be quite thorough. commissioner miguel: to follow

up on commissioner wu's comments, particularly on page s-21 of the tdm comments, i think there were very well thought out. much more detail than we usually see in an eir. i was pleased to see that. on the variant, when you get in, i think it is a roman numeral ii -- the off-street parking i would fully agree with. i think it is a good use of the space, it can work, and it should definitely be included in the final consideration. when we get down to the hpc co mments, there is the hospital facade side variant on 2.45.

hopefully that is sufficient to allow for additional design consideration for the future, even though it is a little bit specific. to me, the actual design of the building is something that, as long as it is covered sufficiently in the eir, can be discussed later on when we get to the actual project. i think this eir, as such, has been thoroughly put together. >> commissioners, if that concludes the comments for the commission, we will state that the public comment period extends to the close of business

on may 31, 2012. thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 11, case 2011.0532t, uses, signs, building features, floor area ratio, parking, and compliance in specified use districts. this is phase three. president fong: i want to clarify that i recused myself from phase two. i want to say that this phase 3 does not include any piece of property i might have an interest in. >> this is phase three. at the last hearing, i stopped and took questions from the commission. i thought i would repeat that unless there was an objection from the commission. with that, we will just get started. the first section deals with

floor area ratio and grow calculations. the first item includes all street parking and loading and the definition of growth square area. it provides access parking in the downtown and parking located underground will still be excluded from gross area calculations. item two excludes gross area calculations in all districts. this was included in phase one and was repeated in the report. you can disregard that. you have already voted on it and approved it. item three would include short- term parking in a gross floor area calculations and floor area ratio constellations. finally, ityem four -- item four was changed so that density is controlled by height and bulk restrictions as well as open

space and exposure. that is all for that section. are there questions on it? president fong: no one has chimed in. public comment? >> we will do that at the end. the next session deals with open space. there is only one part of this. the proposed change is to require buildings in the c-3 district that are primarily retail to provide open space. the proposed change is consistent with the recent planning code decisions that require public open space for retail and institutional uses. the department determined that all significant generators of jobs, visitors and shoppers, should be required to provide open space, just like office buildings, especially in areas that are deficient in existing open space.

we are recommending approval on this one. any questions? commissioner antonini: so the office would be required, presidential would be required. what we are doing is adding retail to all of the other uses that already have the open space requirements. >> that is correct. 80% of the building is used as retail. a high percentage. in the last 10 years, only to projects -- only two projects [inaudible]. the next section deals with parking. currently, parking for dwelling units in the rc-4 districts is required in the ratio of one parking space for every 44 minutes. -- every four dorm units.

the proposed legislation proposes to institute a 1 space per 4 unit requirements in all rc district. supervisor chu sent a letter to the commission in february the proposed amending the ordinance to remove the minimum parking requirements in the rc districts and instituting a .75 space per parking maximum. the number is what is currently permitted, 150% of the minimum. no absolute parking maximum was provided by supervisor chu. the commission they want to propose a maximum parking for the rc districts if they decide to take this route, such as 0.75 or 1-to-1, which is what other

mixed use districts have. for the van ness area and at rc- 3 district, supervisor chu proposes eliminating minimum parking requirements as well, allowing of 2.5 parking spaces per unit with a maximum of 0.75 with a conditional use. it proposes the elimination of minimum parking requirements as proposed by supervisor chu. the proposed change is consistent with parking requirements and other trends in other districts even with a significantly lower densities. the next item deals with parking in north beach, broadway, and chinatown. parking requirements for non- residential uses in broadway and north beach neighborhood and commercial districts and the mixed used districts are regulated by the minimum parking controls on cable 151. -- on table 151.

they waive non-residential parking requirements except in the rare case with over 20,000 square feet in the chinatown community business district. we discussed this in phase two. a recent ordinance placed the parking requirements for residents with maximum limits but did not make conforming limits to residential uses. this ordinance would address that. the proposed legislation would remove minimum parking requirements for non-residential uses in these districts. maximum parking requirements for non-residential uses would be added in table section 151.1. these changes would be consistent with the parking requirements in other transit- oriented districts in san francisco and the policies of the general plan. that ends the parking section. any questions? commissioner antonini: first, on

the last one, north beach, chinatown, you say they are consistent. this is non-residential. at the present time, there are some requirements for non- residential parking in those areas. >> there are minimum parking requirements. commissioner antonini: that is based on square footage? >> it depends on the use, but generally, yes. it is being replaced by maximum parking controls, which it depends on the use. section 151.1, it goes over the uses and tells you the minimum and maximum. commissioner antonini: staff feels that was consistent with what we have in other areas, densely populated retail areas such as downtown? >> yes. commissioner antonini: i do not have as much a problem about that. i am concerned about the van ness corridor. also, the cr districts, which

were called out earlier. van ness has the van ness sud. as we heard with the hearing with cal pacific, there is three times the amount of residential- to-commercial. therefore, it is sometimes difficult to make topencil out. i am not saying that most of the development might be against having an interest in having less parking. there may be situations along the van ness corridor where some of the buildings would be residential, for sale, or even for rent, that would be of a scope that, to make this thing work, they would need to have 1- to-1 parking, if it were a high and tight building. i think having a maximum is not

a good idea. at least you would have an allowance that there was no minimum. basically, those with projects could choose. we are making all of the incentives in the rest of this legislation to incentivize the production of more housing, denser housing, f.a.r. changes, all of the things that are being done. there might be instances where someone would want to build a residential building. to make it work, they would be required to have that. i would favor allowing up to 1- to-1 or, at the very least, allow a c.u. in the van ness corridor to go 1-to-1. probably no should be applied to the cr districts, but they already have a low ratio. >> that is correct.

.25. commissioner antonini: you have quite a change here. i am not sure if it is as important as those. having the flexibility to allow for those instances where more parking would be necessary, it keeps you from problems in the future. you cannot foresee the future and there is a good possibility that there may be some projects that would not be built if they were not allowed enough parking. president fong: any other questions on this portion? >> ok. the next one is pretty short. it is the transportation management plan. there is only one item. currently, section 163 requires property owners to require on- site transportation service and management plans when they construct a new building or there is a conversion of an

existing building in the c-3 eastern neighborhoods and south of market mixed use district. it would change it to implement the c-2 districts and other mixed used district. -- mixed use districts. the next section is powers of the va. it would allow him to waive dwelling unit requirements consistent with is currently up 42 waive requirements for article 10 buildings. for article 10 and 11 buildings thought it would permit him to allow open space to be credited toward the residential open space requirements. the proposed change reduces the need for variances with non- conforming use when converting a

residential use. currently, converting requires open space and exposure. these are routinely granted but they add cost and process to the developer. the hpc has reviewed this and they do support it. the second item will allow the zoning administrator to reduce or waive required parking or loading for projects when the only feasible street frontage is located on the projected pedestrian cycling or transit- oriented street front. i have included maps in your case packet. were the only available street is located at a transit stop. the legislation as a provision that would allow the zoning administrator to waive the

parking requirements with the recommendation from the department of public works, bureau of urban forestry, or the recommendation of a certified arborist. those are the only items in that section. any questions? ok. the next section deals with van ness ave. these have code changes and map changes. the first item is the special sign district. currently, van ness has sign controls that were adopted that allow for larger and taller signs. the proposed legislation would eliminate the van ness sign district. sign controls would revert to the underlying zoning, which is mostly rc-4. i have included a packet that shows the difference. staff recommends that the commission either recommends

against eliminating the special sign district or have it brought back for further study. the sign district controls were created for the mixed use nature. it should be taken to improving the visual impact. the next item impacts signs on van ness and is a code and map change. signs for commercial and industrial districts, there is a provision that allows for special flashing or blinking signs. it applies to c-2 lots along van ness. it would delete the provision

from section 6 under 6 and the zoning map. flashing, blanking, fluctuating signs would not be permitted. this section of the code predates the van ness area plan, which prohibits flashing or blinking signs. it is limited to property is zoned c-2, of which there -- properties zoned c-2, of which there are a handful. this section was not amended when the van ness area plan was adopted. staff is recommending that you removed van ness and make the corresponding changes. the next item deals with parking along van ness. this was touched on earlier. currently, there is a 1-to-1 parking requirement for projects along van ness ave.

the proposed legislation removes this provision and parking controls would refer to the underlying zoning. as stated earlier, supervisor chu said the commission a letter stating that he wanted to modify it the legislation for parking on van ness avenue and the rc-3 districts. he proposed eliminating the minimum requirements and allowing up 2.5 parking spaces per unit with a maximum of 0.75 per unit with conditional use. while the van ness area plan has specified 1-to-1, or moving it is consistent with the rest of the general plan. that is it for that section. any questions? commissioner sugaya: you are recommending that there is a grandfather clause. there is an example. all of the parking we were talking about is related to residential. >> yes.

it would take away all minimum parking requirements and set in maximum parking requirements. commissioner sugaya: right, but cpmc, isn't all the parking related to the office used? >> it is. there are maximum parking controls for medical use. commissioner sugaya: then i do not understand why we need a grandfather clause. >> the legislation would also change the parking requirements on van ness for non-residential uses as well. commissioner sugaya: and the implication for cpmc would be what? >> i believe it would reduce the amount of parking that they are allowed to have. commissioner sugaya: then i do not think we should have a grandfather clause. >> noted. any other questions on van ness avenue? commissioner antonini: i think

we definitely should have grandfathering, because we have a number of other products that are under construction. one would assume there grandfathered because they are already under construction. there are some that are approved or in the pipeline. also, there is the whole consideration of a lot of the housing trying to be built, in keeping with cal pacific. it might not all necessarily be in the area, but there would be an impetus for construction or more housing as part of the entitlements that are being -- that were passed for cal pacific. i think if we do not allow them enough flexibility to be able to build some housing that might have 1-to-1 parking, i do not see the decision from what we heard earlier. it seems like you're saying the same thing in both sections.

it all has to do with residential parking in the van ness corridor. >> correct. one has to do with van ness and the other has to do with rc-3 and rc-4 parking. there is quite a bit of overlap. it is a bit confusing. commissioner sugaya: we are not saying we are grandfathering in projects to all of the other districts that this applies to. it seems to me we are singling out a single project that would benefit -- that would not benefit from this particular change to the code. it is highly -- i would say it is totally unlikely that cpmc is going to build any residential project within the van ness corridor anyway. commissioner antonini: we are not really talking about them specifically building it. the plan is such that there is an incentive for other projects

to have a lot of motivation for housing to be built. again, you have to allow enough flexibility to have all kinds of different housing. you may have some when very little parking. you may have some with 1-to-1 parking. if you start putting absolute maximum on some things, you start eliminating a lot of possibilities and you make it harder for the kind of housing that would apply to particularly families. we talk about the hypothetical people who would be working at cal pacific who might want to have families. if they cannot park their car, they will not want to buy a place in this hypothetical housing. we have to be careful about restricting things too much. >> ok. the final section deals with the

streetscape improvements and the implementation of the plan. currently, section 138 1/7 as requirements associated with development projects. typically, these requirements apply to new developments on additions of a certain size. there are no explicit provisions that see the removal of existing encroachments into the public right of way to be modified in order to meet the street plan. the proposed legislation would create a subsection that would city a city inquiry into the removal of existing encroachments' for projects that meet certain triggers. they include additions of over 20% of floor area, changes in use of more than half of the floor area, and additions to the loading. in these cases, the city may reap -- may consider the removal of encroachments, including narrowing or reducing

the number of driveways, removing encroachments that impede pedestrians travel, or removing those that extend under the public right of way. we are concerned that new provisions are too broad. for instance, as the ordinance is currently written, even if one parking space is added or removed, the property owners could be required to remedy their existing encroachments. a change of use to add some of the burden on property owners that are seeking to rent out a vacant space. the department worked with supervisor chu and drafted proposed changes to the legislation. these changes would narrow the triggers in the proposed ordinance. it would expand certain tree- planting requirements to all districts and would clarify certain other provisions in the legislation that there has been confusion about. i have detailed the changes in

the exhibit j in your packet. the department is asking that you include these in your recommendation to the board. that is the end of my presentation for it if you have questions on that section, i would be happy to answer them. commissioner sugaya: i would like consideration given -- to removing the reference to removing basements that extend under the public right of way. just based on my own experience where our office building extends under the sidewalk, all of the utilities that we use, all of the sewer lines, the water lines, there is some pump down there that if it does not run, our basement will flood. it would be extremely expensive to all of that stuff out underneath the sidewalk into within the property line.

that is the case for many buildings along the street. i do not know what the intent is by that reference, but i think, just by saying that, there are a lot of things under the sidewalk that are building-related debt would have to be moved, i would think. >> i believe it only applies to basements that encroach into the public right of way, but i understand your point. commissioner sugaya: yes. our baseman goes underneath. president fong: i would have to agree. a clarification of the actual purpose of it, is it to envoy hatch's opening up and encroaching on the public realm? -- to avoid hatches opening of an encroaching to the public realm? >> these came as -- with discussions with dpw. the city can take back any --

those are public spaces that are in those basements. there have been times when the commissioners worked on an issue related to a major project. in district 3, relating to the central subway, at one point. all of the provisions are intended to do is if the triggers are met, which would be unusual for any existing business, it would allow the department to revoke the use. it would just make it easier for the dpw process. it is not intended as a dramatic policy shift. in the case that i work on most directly with the central subway, there were retailers in union square that built out some sidewalk basements. those were revoked in order to move the utilities from underneath the street to the basement. even utilities that