can we move this forward to the meeting on the 24th? can we move this forward without objection? rex with a positive recommendation? >> with a positive recommendation. thank you. please call item no. 2. >> an ordinance in the planning code to establish residential districts, removing hp and square footage limitations, and amending the order. >> thank you for having this item before you, and to the committee members for considering it. the item before you is a pretty simple piece of legislation, but could have significant positive impact in my neighborhood. as you know, the legislation does a number of things, primarily establishing outside

sunset commercial districts. these are tools we have in many other places, in and out of command, west portal, broadway, castro, etc. we have a number of different things that it does. within these four hours at the commercial districts, we presented to zoning controls for the most part, but one is for a couple of other things. one is to allow for a 5 ft. ground floor height space. we have increased the ground floor space we can have more attractive retail space. we want to encourage active ground floor uses. most of the conversation came about because we wanted to find a way that we would have more control and our commercial areas to allow neighbors and

businesses to say exactly what they want in their areas. but we also wanted to make sure that we were encouraging active spaces and have more space is where people would want to go and participate. it also does change slightly the definition for trade shop. this is something that is already applied to all commercial areas, or is allowable at all commercial areas. it removes the one-third limitation on mechanical equipment. and it also adds language to control for noise, odor, and garbage. this was directly after feedback from members of the public on this item. we say we want to have an active retail, made in ink -- component in any of these trade shop areas. that is the essential for a vibrant space.

we are looking to make some changes. there are a couple of things we do want to speak in terms of the process. we did go to the planning commission as well and receive recommendation with a few modifications. in terms of substantive items, we did incorporate many of the areas where there were recommendations made to us. there were only a few exceptions. one is, instead of having four commercial areas, they wanted us to have it consolidated two three. but we felt it was for distinctive street, and we thought that would be easier and less disk -- and less confusing. we requested that we keep the four distinct named areas. right now come up with the trade job definition, with the

pressure in the back and at the front, there was a question about whether they had to be the same shop. could use something different in the back from the front? planning has said, let's just leave that lose. our neighborhood commercial folks said, why don't we tied uses together. we have continued to 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.