work on that piece. we have letters of support from the outer sunset merchants association. and we have been working very directly with tecate at sf made. a -- with tecate at sf made. and of course, katie chain in my office has checked in with each supervisor to find out a list of merchants. i think we have done and number of things to reach out and let people know about it. i would like to make a few moments -- amendments to the legislation. there are a few outstanding issues that i did want to address. you have probably heard about them. there was a question around whether we would expand the

boundaries around caravel street to go beyond 19th avenue. when we first started this project, we wanted to be within a for a printer -- for a print of district four. rather than speak for another district supervisor, we wanted to keep it within our existing district. if that district supervisor is interested in extending and adding on to the boundaries, we can do that. that is something we can consider in the future, but not necessarily for today. there was a question around vibration. we have added controls around noise and odor and garbage. we just recently received a comment about whether we want to have additional controls around vibrations.

that did not come up what we went to the planning commission. breaded and adding it on, i would rather take up that issue separately. we can take that up with many of the shops before we add that on as a requirement. and finally, whether there and should be a temporary time limit. as we learn more, we can always change and adapt. if we had said this would only go into effect for two to three years and i think we would lose a lot of the momentum. i think that many businesses would be worried that they would lose momentum. that is the legislation in a nutshell. i do hope that you'll be supportive of it.

and i know we have commissioner start to answer questions if you have them. >> good afternoon. aaron starr from the planning department. the commission was extremely supportive of establishing neighborhood commercial districts in the outer sunset. naming of district allows for more tailored control and enhance its unique characteristics as is he did with the neighborhood. currently, there are no name to ncd's and the ordinance would change that. we named them after the street rather than what they were proposed as. and we also recommend that the nc1 zoning districts remain nc1

zoning districts and not be named. the commission asked us to clarify how some of the new controls would be implemented. some of those recommendations were incorporated into the ordinance and some were not. will be happy to answer questions. >> i which is going to ask about the, that we got on low frequency noise and vibration and how that might be addressed. >> that was not part of the planning commission meeting, so it was not discussed. but i believe there are certain noise levels and vibration triggers that we can add into the code, in to this section training legislation. -- trailing legislation.

>> for the most part, and entertainment venues we do have vibration controls already. it might be worthwhile to have a public process to do that before we put in the legislation. if we were to add to -- at an amendment to this, i much prefer if we were to do with three trading legislation. and if we could speak to the amendments that we would looking for, right now, in terms of the ncd boundary, the boundary should be listed between 19th avenue and sixth avenue. this is correct in the planning department report and the original legislation reported. however, in the last iteration it read it to only 27th ave. i want to make that correction. on page 13, paragraph three

entered 97, the boundary should read up to sixth avenue. the second amendment that are embedded with the legislation, there is a section that refers to financial services and french financial services. they all have a #two -- a number sign behind the table referring to a another section, but there is no separate section. we would ask to have that removed. that is as clean up language on the amendment. page 18, lines 14 and 15, page 24, line 21 and 22. and there is one area that residents have asked us to add an additional word to clarify.

we added formula retail to clarify that it add -- that it applies only to form in the retail and to restaurants. all three of the general category of amendments are sensitive. >> colleagues, if there are no questions, can we open this up to the public? is there anyone from the public would like to speak? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i want to complement supervised -- supervisor chu and her office in their willingness to work with us. and i do want to speak specifically to the importance of the follow-up legislation with regard to the noise frequency and vibration. the current know it -- noise code focuses only on the dpa scale. and these are not linear. when you get too low frequency noise, you have a highly impact

will noise and sensation. -- impact full noise and sensation. but it is not picked up. in a lot of our neighborhood commercial districts we have corner lots, which are great places for a trade job. -- trade shop. the opportunity to watch craftsmen working in the commercial districts is now something that becomes more valuable with these changes. it is a recruiting opportunity. the problem is, without having these added controls on the local frequency disturbances, you can have someone going in and in all good faith putting in

a system and then discovering it is disruptive and it causes neighborhood problems. getting this legislation is a really good way well intended people do not end up in a conflict that is unnecessary. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, executive director of livable city. i want to thank supervisor chiu for bringing this forward. -- supervisor chu for bringing this forward. one, and we have had all along is whether we could consolidate definitions across the zoning districts.

we have trade job definitions in article 7 of the code, which is the section being amended today. we applaud all of those changes and the substitution of the good neighbor policy is the right way to go. however, we have an almost identical trade shop definition in section 8 of the code. we think substituting the definition that you have before you today, which is much newer, makes a lot of sense. it is very much in the mood of the planning code reforms these days, which is to have as few as possible and do not get in their way. if you would consider that amendment. it we think that would be a

great step toward. this could be a rather good afterdeck code reform. >> thank you. next speaker, mr. paulson. >> i'm originally from the sunset. ♪ your shining star ♪ no matter who you are ♪ shining bright tuzee ♪ ♪ when you can truly be ♪ shining bright to see ♪ ♪ war your district can truly be

♪ ♪ ♪ your shining star ♪ ♪ no matter who you are ♪ shining bright to see ♪ when your district can truly district ♪ shining bright for you to see ♪ ♪ would your district can truly be. -- what your district can truly be ♪ ♪ won't you give it to the sense that, please ♪ ♪ >> thank you. next speaker. >> the afternoon, supervisors. there are three major points. the caravel section should not

be included, but done separately. i would urge you not to send it forward to the full board. but do it right and do it now. the second is the issue that i have as a former staffer working on the neighborhood commercial districts. the forms that you have and there's a you do not have to look at all the controls and have all of that explained. . the third issue is the height increases of 5 ft.. it seems to be in general a very good idea because it allows more space for the technical issues, but in the nc 1 districts in the outer sunset district, they are

surrounded by rh1 districts and they have only 35 for height limits. if you give them a 45 ft. height, they will really stick out. thank you. >> thank you. would anyone else like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. in the concluding remarks? >> thank you. again, i would conclude that the committee take into recommendation the full board comments or tomorrow. and mr. warmers comment, i appreciate them. we need to look into them to make sure there are no unintended consequences. and of course, to mr. rad ulovich, we need to simplify

it this as quickly as possible. if we are doing the training legislation, we might do that. and to invest that came out, we have to be here you and -- and to inga that came out, we absolutely hear you. we will do outreach to the community as regards how to do that. and finally on the 5 ft. increased, even if it is close to an rh1 area, i think there is a benefit to allowing additional height to attract more ground floor spaces.

i would ask that you send this forward with recommendation. >> i will make the motion to amend. i am very supportive of this legislation and a big fan of ncd. it allows for really good urban planning within a commercial area and to allow neighborhoods to be able to work to impact the future of their neighborhoods. i want to thank supervisor chiu for bringing this forward. >> thank you to your staff and yourself for bringing this forward. to improve the definition of trade, shop, and the planning code. it is very smart. i personally was very surprised

at how antiquated this particular part of the code with these constraints have been. i also believe that the changes that you have suggested will have an impact even on the south district 10. we are lucky to have tenants that manufacture and sell goods in both locations. i'm pretty excited about what will be happening. the crux of want to thank you for your thorough ness -- >> i want to thank you for your thoroughness for reaching out to everyone on this. i am also want to say either forward on the noise -- low frequency noise issues on the planning code as well. supervisor wiener has moved the amendment. can we give a positive recommendation without objection? rex it -- >> if we could

authorize the clerk to make the amendments as well since it is coming so quickly through committee and they are not substantive in nature. >> sure, the court can make sure that those amendments are knowledge. -- the clerk can make sure that those amendments are acknowledged. without objection is, colleagues. >> thank you. >> mr. evans, could you please call item 3, 4, and five together? >> item number 3, an ordinance to expand the applicability of bicycle parking requirements, exempt bicycle parking from a floor-area ratio calculations, permit the conversion of automotive service stations located on primary transit streets. item #4, an ordinance amending the san francisco planning code

by repealing obsolete sections and amending sections to make various clerical modifications. and item number five, an ordinance amending the planning code to allow for reactivation of limited commercial uses in districts under a conditional use authorization. >> let me just say that president david chiu is the sponsor of 3, 4, 5. and on number five, supervisors olague and composts -- and campos are co-sponsors. >> i'm the legislative aide to supervisor david chiu.

if i could just have the committee -- the committees indulgent about how we have gotten here. last year in the middle of 2011, president chiu had worked for a livable city and other stakeholders on a significant ordinance that amended the planning code in numerous ways. it was about 345 pages and was related primarily to controls in the northeastern part of the city with some impact that were beyond the northeastern part of the city. i'm happy to report that over the course of the second part of 2011, we've actually had five or six hearings and through the diligent work of aaron starr and others who are here, we have worked to get the wheel the

ordinands into its constituent parts. the we have three of those ordnances before you. there are for five more pending. if i could speak briefly to the specifics to each of these three ordnances, i will speak before -- the overall point of the ordinance i would say is twofold. it was to delete obsolete sections, fix redundancies, and clean up the code. and also furthered the widely held principles and policies in the general plan, such as the creation and encouragement of general -- of affordable housing, and sustainable activities like bicycling. and to get those things in line more with these policies. this goes through and lead just -- as the legislative digests

expects. one of the things we are removing, to give you an idea, 263.3, which is removing a special height and bulk revisions. the last piece of that dilapidated pier, which is right under the bay bridge, was removed a few years ago and will not be rebuilt. it seems silly to have provisions in the planning code that relate to know logger existent years. -- to no longer existing years. moving onto item three, and please feel free to interrupt me if you have any particular questions -- >> don't worry. we will. >> i have been around long

enough to know that you probably will. related to the provisions run bicycle parking and automotive related services, the bike part of this ordinance exempts part -- exempts bicycle parking along with others in existence. it does not count with developers to provide bark -- by parking. -- bicycle parking. it is a small way to standardize the requirement of the bicycle parking in the related code. gas stations have a lot of people coming in and out. they can slow down transit.

we want to make sure that some gas stations are on primary transit corridors. that is essentially what item three dads, and a few other smaller pieces. item three is substantive as well -- i'm sorry, item 5 is substantive as well. it relates to the economic vitality of our commercial corridors. that is an ordinance related to commercial limited uses, and limited corner commercial uses. these are used as defined in the planning code. with regard to limited commercial uses, which existed prior to 1960, but essentially had been closed at some point -- it will allow them to be reactivated. we see this as a way to

activate on our corners. elsie's he was developed -- lcc's was constructed and developed with octavia in mind. it allows for 100 ft. from the corner. a lease holder that has a corner use that needs to go beyond 50 ft. to make it work, otherwise, it's just blank space in this case, the legislation would allow that to happen. this is why president chiu would like to move these three ordnances, and in particular, item five. there are some neighborhood merchants who are interested in unveiling themselves of this provision, which has been in

production for about a year. the small business commission endorsed those items in particular. we have the support of livable city and many other organizations and individuals along the way. that is my rundown of the ordinance. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for being censusing. i see no questions. anyone from the public would buy to speak? -- anyone from the public like to speak? patricia. please line up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am the special project

instructor at the san francisco bicycle coalition appeared on behalf of our 12,000 members, i would like to encourage you to adopt the legislation that would enable the bicycle parking to be exempted from the floor area. this smart piece of legislation would help ensure individuals have a safe and secure place to ride our bikes at home and at work. this will be placed on par with car parking. we think that by allowing the bicycle parking to be exempt from the floor area, i will create -- it will create an incentive rather than penalize. the real-estate market needs to have this common sense and flexibility. we ask that you support this

piece of legislation and allow developers and builders to create more secure bicycle parking and make sure that others have a secure place to store their bicycle so they will be there when they go home. >> thank you. >> i'm very happy that we are here today. i just wanted to make a few points. on a bicycle parking, we actually -- car parking is exempt from far. we are creating parity in this instance between bike parking and car parking. any sponsor that wants to go beyond what their requirements say is this incentivized now. a -- is disincentivized now.

one parking space for every other unit is too little if you want a lot of bite. -- a lot of bikes. and the bicycle could take up a big part of your unit. in these transit rich areas, we think this is good public policy. the other is reactivating the corner commercial uses. we have sort of done an about- face in city planning. in the 1960's we said we will have residential districts, commercial districts, and manufacturing districts and never the twain shall meet. that is a poor match for san francisco. a lot of the existing commercial buildings in these districts were given a reprieve. but that's based can never be reactivated. it has lapsed. a great example in my neighborhood trifuno the corner of 20th and guerrero