otherwise, i made some recommendations, and i have sent him to supervisor chu's office. i look forward to seeing this move forward expeditiously through land use and the board of supervisors. >> thank you. eric, mary ann, and enga. >> a couple questions. first, i am a neighbor in a judicious -- judas, right where it changes from residential to commercial. this is the first i have heard of it. i wonder if the residents can hear more of the process on how we're going to hear more about with -- what this means. because i have no idea. that is why i am here, to try and find out. and what is it going to mean in terms of parking in the area? that is becoming an issue as this little area gets more commercial. this is the judah-irving area.

thank you. that is all. >> mary ann miller, i am speaking on behalf of the sunset park said education and action committee. we generally represent the -- residents and do not have representation in the commercial district, but we used our commercial district. we love the commercial districts. the question of vital opposition or revitalization, it seems to us, is always an economic issue. yet, it -- if naming is a good idea, so be it. it is just as some of the other controls are a little bit worrisome. and at the end of what i say, i

would like to ask you to make these controls temporary and let us see what unintended consequences may occur. will there be a rise in truck traffic? will there be late night to deliveries and so on? could a fried one-third be separated from a rear two-thirds trade shop, and the trade job overwhelm, even though there is sort of a frontage and a display window, with this heavier mechanical use, manufacturing use, possibly become a nuisance? and we just do not know how this will play out. so i would say not a sunset, but a sundown, which would be almost three years with a bit of an inventory occurring in those three named nc districts in the outer sunset. an inventory of what did go in. was it a spur to neighborhood

growth or do we have some nuisances happening there? those districts were not meant to be wholesale and manufacturing. nearly language that supervisor chu had had wholesaling and manufacturing as the permitted use up to 10,000 feet. we got scared by that. it has been modified since and explained to us better. wholesaling is not allowed, but it is not so stated. i am worried about the storage of things did you make things, the manufacture things, and later, you have to store them. does this lead to this becoming a distribution center with an additional trucks? certainly, the odder son session not absorb that kind of use. the best the counter sun's that should not absorb that kind of use. as it becomes more of an industrial district, that does not sound right out there in that rh-1 and rh-2 neighborhood.

so please be cautious and give it a sundown clause. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. from 1983 to 1987, i worked as a planner in the city planning department on the neighborhood commercial to zoning study, and the company made it through its adoption before the board of supervisors. i am also a resident of the outer son said. when the legislation was adopted in 1987, there were 270 nc district city-wide classified as a generic nc-1 nc- 2, nc-3, , and nc-s districts.

several several restricted use districts as an overlay. since then, the number of the main district has grown to 23. will this trend continue until all 270 district surnamed? that is just a little bit to put this in context. the name recognition for the district in the sun said will be welcome, but i think that, as it was already city, the small nc- 1 districts along the western most parts of noriega, irving, and taraval and judah street not need special name recognition. the planning department recommends that there are three named district to replace the existing nc-2 districts along taraval, noriega, judah, and

irving streets. that is a very acceptable proposal. however, the department neglects to integrate the taraval restaurant subdistrict in the irving street restaurant subdistrict into the new nc district, right into the restaurant controls. as well as other controls, such as limited hours of operation for medical cannabis dispensaries. when the named districts were originally created in the mid- 1980's, it was a major goal to include all applicable sub districts into the use table so that it would be easier to see what is allowed. [bell rings] as it stands at the moment, you have written for restaurants permitted, but then way at the end of the table, it says that

there are conditional use or no permits. and i would like this to be changed. also, that staff takes a look at the judah street and noriega's street, which are in between -- [bell rings] >> thank you very much. >> so that is comprehensive. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes, interesting legislation. i like it in general. i understand the confusion as to the definition, size, and that type of thing. to an extent, in many instances, catering falls into that because

they cook in the back and have a small restaurant in the front, yet their main business is catering. so with catering, you'll have to consider that as well. there are many restaurants and delis in san francisco that are in the catering business for a good part of their income, even though it may not be apparent from the street. i really appreciate your work with sf made. their experience in dealing with areas of san francisco, in my mind, as an excellent. there was a comment that district 7 may be next, and that sort of falls in some of the comments. you have got, in my mind, perhaps some artificial boundaries here, particularly 19th avenue. and i understand that supervisor chu is the one that put this forward.

but the neighborhood commercial districts do not appreciate supervisor districts. they tend to go on. they do not care whose district they are in in the sense of where they're located. at times, they have little in common on the two sides of the major geographic boundary, such as a 19th avenue. but in many instances, they have a great deal in common. so it bothers me a little bit that we're dealing with, and in some terms, part of a commercial district and not the whole thing. i do not think that is logical add all. i think the whole thing should be considered together, and that goes for many of the districts

that we are considering here. i am is certainly not going to oppose legislation because of that. but i do not think the artificiality in this instance of a supervisor district serves the question very well. other than that, i think it is an excellent idea. i like the fact that there has been, from what i can tell, a very good outreach, particularly to the commercial interest but also to the major neighborhood residential group, and i applaud the work that has gone into it. commissioner antonini: generally, i do not favor increasing controls, but sometimes some sort of oversight is necessary. i would agree with some of the things that commissioner miguel said, although i do feel that even within a given street,

there are distinct different neighborhood commercial areas. take a curving street. irving street and the inner sunset in conjunction with ninth avenue. is a different type of area. the more we make these discrete, probably the better we can handle their needs. and i do agree that splitting them up into individually named areas is a good way to do it. in fact, you may even want to split irving from judah, although they do have similarities but you could certainly do that. taraval from noriega. the part about the 5 ft. height think everybody feels the that is a really good thing to do, because it returns these neighborhood commercial store fronts to something that is a lot more attractive, and during the 1960's through the 1980's, we tried to pile as many floors as we could at the same height

of the expense of the ground floor. that is why we ended up with these crunched ground force, which are not as attractive and inviting. and i was a resident for four years in the sunset during dental school, and i live in the west portal area, actually lakeside village, but i frequently did go to the sunset. not as much anymore. and i think this may be part of what we're able to do. i think we have a lot less a variety of retail uses on some of these streets than we did see when i was living there and in years after that in the 1960's and 1970's. i am not saying we need lumberyards, but there was one there, and there were nursery's and more of a variety of restaurants and more evening activities. stationery stores, appliance stores. a lot of these things are not there as much as they used to be. the uses are sort of limited. part of it might be a product of

the fact people today do not do all their shopping. they go other places to shop, neighborhoods do not have to be all-inclusive. but some neighborhoods have remained more welcoming and more inclusive. for example, west portal has a lot of different things that you would like to have in a neighborhood, where some of these other streets we are dealing with here are more limited. so, maybe we can figure out why some neighborhoods are able to continue to keep on being a center for activity, whereas others are not. so i think it is good legislation. i would agree with some of the speakers who had some question about the trade shot part of it and just kind of take a look at that to make sure that uses that are not -- as long as we have square footage limits and we're really careful about the effects of the neighbors, we do not want to turn these neighborhood areas into commercial centers. also, we have to make sure we have the powers to police and

that the activities are actually what they are reported to be, as opposed to other things. that is always a case we have to deal with with anything that is approved. but i think it is basically a good idea. i think it is going to help a lot of things. we could maybe have more street enhancement and things along those areas if we make these industry areas and that the merchants in the neighbors in the area interact and be able to make these streets more welcoming. commissioner sugaya: yes, staff, can i get a clarification on the 5 ft. height increase. does that also apply to nc-1's? >> we are recommending that it does apply, and we meant section263, i think it is, to include those specific parcels. so there would be a hash tag, and he would have to go to that section.

in some correspondence arguing that perhaps it is not necessary and that it might also, because of the work of the previous step and task force took place in establishing the nc district. in the sunset, it appeared as though they head enough height saw to accommodate taller retell high on the first floor and still accommodate two or three floors of residential. >> what we find is developers always want to maximize the floor to ceiling height in residential units. it sells for more. so we're always fighting with them to give us a larger ground floor, and they're also -- always fighting back to do that for residential floors. this sort of negates that argument. commissioner antonini: on the changes to the trade, trade shops -- i do not know if i

missed it, but are there going to be changes in the requirements for things like loading and deliveries? >> there are already performance standards in article 7 that apply to all neighborhood commercial districts. >> if we're changing of from one-third to two-thirds in the amount of square footage goes up for a trade show, does that other section in the planning code then take into account what might be increased need for deliveries for loading docks or that kind of thing? >> actually, the current trade job definition allows the entire store front to be used as a trade shot, but it needs to have some sort of retail component so that it is open to the public. with this legislation does is it says he can have a trade show without a retail company, but it is limited to the rear two-

thirds of it. and the front one-third is required to have an active use. so it is actually kind of shrinking the availability of trade shop square footage. what we heard from sf made is that 1500 sq. ft. is kind of the sweet spot for their clients and the kind of space they are looking for. commissioner miguel: now? -- commissioner sugaya: now? >> yes, now. commissioner sugaya: is there any relationship between what the if trade shows and the use of the front of the store? >> no, there does not have to be a relationship. commissioner sugaya: thank you. commissioner miguel: appreciating the fact that the department and the supervisor's office is continuing work on this, i would recommend approval with the modifications as presented by the planning staff. >> on the question of loading,

requirements are based on size, right? >> correct. there is a loading dock trigger in the planning code. i think it is really large. >> otherwise, of businesses in nc districts have on-street loading? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: yes, i think the supervisor mentioned that they had done some outreach to other supervisors because of the way it will affect other neighborhood commercial districts in their suburban hours -- supervisorial districts. i would like to encourage some outreach to the neighborhood commercial organizations that exist over this, unless you have already done that. especially the trade shop changes, there might be some, you know, positive or negative, whatever, feedback that you might get depending on the

district. i was trying to think there might be some issues with established ncd's that are named that have very specific code language and whether or not this might not even fit in or not fit in. it would be good to get feedback from those various organizations, i think. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval with the modifications offered by staff. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner fong: aye. >> thank you. that motion passed unanimously. >> we're going to take a short break here. we have a full calendar. so we're going to take about a 10 to 15-minute break. >> ok,

>> good afternoon. i am a senior planner with the planning department. i am here making this presentation to you on behalf of my colleagues. this is a hearing to receive comment on the draft environmental impact report for the san francisco overlooked residential project. it was published on may 2, 2012. the proposed project includes construction of 34 dwelling units and 68 parking spaces. in 13 buildings. staff is not here to -- for comment today. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. the document will include responses to all written

comments that we receive on the eir, as well as revisions. this is not a hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the project. that hearing will follow certification of the eir. comments today should be directed to the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the draft eir. commoners should speak slowly and clearly so that the court reporter can -- commentaries should speak slowly and could be said the court reporter. after hearing comments from the general public, we will take any comments from the commissioners on the draft eir. the public comment period it began on may 2, 2012, and extend until 5:00 tuesday, to 19th, 2012. this concludes my presentation. i respectfully request that the

public hearing be open. >> thank you. i am calling some speaker cards. i will call a bunch of names at one time. [reading names] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am sometimes known as jack dougherty. my wife and i have owned a two- unit building at 315-317 for 40 years now. we know the neighborhood fairly well. i am here today to articulate to you why i think the draft environmental impact report is in adequate and i intend to

address to areas that are of particular interest to me, namely parking and traffic as it relates to fire safety. i have not previously filed any written comments, but i brought my written comments with me today. there is, i believe, nine copies there. one for the file and one for each of the commissioners. basically, before i get into parking and traffic, there is a bit of a need for some context about this proposal. first, the important critical fact is that public transportation to this area is flat out terrible. in fact, if this development or to be approved, as proposed, a

person living in the 10-unit town house building at the westerly edge of the project would have to walk over half a mile to get to the nearest bus stop. it is hilly terrain both ways. on a rainy day, it becomes difficult. as a practical matter, at anybody who has ever lived in this area, and i know this is not a popular thing to say, they would agree that you absolutely need a car, an automobile, to live and function in this particular neighborhood. that is the first bit of context i wanted to point out.

talking about later, crestmont drive, at the point where it passes by my house, all the way down to the start of the proposed subdivision, is only 26 feet wide. parking is allowed on both sides of the street. it may not be ideal, but it is absolutely necessary. the original subdivision, as approved, approved two-unit buildings with five bedrooms and only two garage spaces. people have to park on the streets. >> thank you very much. your time is up. >> i did not know i had time. thank you. >> mr. president, just to be clear, everyone has up to three minutes.

>> i live at 409 crestmont drive, directly behind where the proposed development would be built. i would like to reiterate that this is -- it is very difficult to get around. my comments are on the transportation section of the eir. that is a section from page 93- 118. i notice that several of the methodologies used included spot observations. the spot observations were at times when they were not relevant. for instance, oftentimes, the observations for from the hours of 6:00 until 8:00 in the afternoon. it tells us very little about parking. a lot of people come home from work after 8:00. frequently, i will see parking

is not fold from 6:00 until 8:00. -- full from 6:00 until 8:00. i would like to respond to the area is adequately served by fire response. i am not quite sure how people came up with that. i will talk to you about an incident that occurred in my house in april of 2006. we had a dryer fire at that time. it was frightening, at one point, and we call the fire department. it took them 10 minutes to get to my house. if we had not been able to put that fire out, the house would have burned down. the house is in that area are right next to each other. possibly, more than my house would have burned down.

those are the comments i wanted to make. thank you very much. president fong: let me call a couple more names. pamela, jennifer, paul, samuel. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the president of the homeowners' association. my address is 407 crestmont drive. the hoa is opposed to this project and its current form. it has expressed this in a letter to the planning commission members. in regards to the eir, i would like to ask that the following comment be addressed. in the report on page 14, reference is made to a sewer

drain line traveling along the southern boundary of the proposed site. further investigation of the integrity of this wind is recommended -- of this line is recommended. there are eight measures recommended to stabilize the hillsides, which may have potential significant effects on the environment. these were not analyzed as required by ceqa. the new work roadways serving the proposed development -- due to the extraordinary construction, the city has convened a review committee. this committee reviewed the previous estimate project and provided a number of items to be included in the investigation report. the committee will be