commissioner sugaya mentioned, those are public utilities. we are not so whetted to this. if the condition -- if the commission was to recommend this, i would take it back to dpw to refine the issue. it was intended as an additional tool for planning in those situations. president fong: i understand. but it could be a huge expense, may be a deal breaker, who wants to do a light remodeling. this is triggered and the city wants to take back the sidewalk. it could create underpinning, etc. >> the way we are proposing it is that it would only apply to large projects. essentially, pud's, we are recommending larger triggers so that it does not happen with a minor remodeling.

vice president wu: could i ask a follow-up question? i am looking at the last trigger, the addition of 20% or more total area. that does not seem that drastic to me. that may be a business or property owner within their regular growth of their business might want to increase by 20%. i am looking for feedback. >> in that case, there are two layers of triggers. is it a large project? is it large enough to be a pud? or does it have linear footage as a frontage. or is it encompassing the entire block phase? we're looking at areas where we want to do a big streetscape

improvements. they have to do one of those -- they have to meet one or more of those triggers. if they did, they would have to do new construction or a major addition that was at least 20%. a building of that size, a 20% addition would be a major project. for a light room -- it would not be a light remodel, it would be a larger project. president fong: a large medical building of some sort. ok. commissioner sugaya: should we just continue on? there are other names up here. those triggers seemed fine, but what happens now is what i want to know before we complicate the code even more. does the city have the ability to go ahead if one of these projects came along, to force

the property owner to extend on the sidewalk? >> i believe dpw does have the right because it is the right of way. the idea is for large projects to be able to get street permits, which you cannot do with these things under the sidewalk. that was the concept. dpw does have that right. president fong: anything further, commissioner sugaya? commissioner wu. vice president wu: i have a question about dwelling unit density. just to make sure that i understand. this is removing the lot area as a limiting factor for dwelling unit density, correct? >> correct. vice president wu: building unit density does not have to do

anything with the size of the unit, whether it is a studio or 1-bedroom. just the number of units. i just wanted to clarify that. president fong: any further questions? ok. public comment on this item. i have two cards, linda and tom. >> my name is linda. i want to speak on the parking changes for the van ness sud and rc-3 districts. i just think this is wonderful. quite a while ago, when the cpmc started, i came in and ran through the van ness plan, in case you had not read it recently. in the er, it is referred to as visionary. at that time, i said, there is just one little thing. they need to update it by

eliminating the 1-to-1 parking requirement. thanks to the supervisor, this is proposed now. i understand that commissioner antonini has doubts because he does not live in a district like russian hill or nottinghill. there are lots of districts where they pretty much need it 1-to-1 parking. in these old districts, they were built before there was a 1- to-1 parking requirement. they do not even have any parking on site at all. this includes the luxury buildings, buildings that are condos, and it works very well. assuming that you have good transit nearby, which on van ness, you obviously do. the other thing you need is to have little retail stores, grocery stores, nearby. we certainly have a lot. and i think they would usually

be near transit. the francesco, one of the premier buildings in the city, does have some parking. it is about 50% as i recall. i checked this out in connection with the spur committee and my building had none. ground towers had none, which is probably close to 100 units. this was very common in these older buildings. it worked beautifully. it is very helpful to have some public parking nearby, which we did, so that a building with no parking at all, people could leaase parking. the francesco, i talked to him and he said, no problem. they rent a garage near the fairmont. it did not prevent units from selling. i spoke at a time -- i spoke to

one of the premier sellers of these units and he would tend to reduce the price of the unit accordingly. on knob hill, two-thirds of the households have no automobile and it was for this kind of reason. one along pine, 80% of the households had no automobile for this region -- for this reason. in a high-rise, but where there was a 1.5 ratio, they had eight% -- 80% of traffic done by car. van ness would be similar. >> good afternoon. i am with littell city. i wanted to point out the removal -- of the encroachment.

the criteria are the same that trigger their requirements for streetscape improvements. it is the match. the director was pointing out is the larger projects. removing those, it is permissive. the funding commission may. it does not say you shall. if there was a great hardship or that basement was not earning anything, [unintelligible] it is an important tool. important streetscape improvements. the only places they have not gone in is where there was a corner basement. you could say that we would like you to put in a mandated curb cut as part of your project. it did to the discretion to do that. we were trying to be permissive

in that and it is a good move. that is the last plan that increased of street parking requirements in san francisco. every other plan that has been adopted subsequent decrease. rc 4 has this. looking at that corridor, bus rapid transit that is being planned, that is one of our project and we're happy to see that moving forward. the idea that you need to have a one to one requirement is antiquated. we think these lower requirements that match those in chinatown, north beach, broadway, all the other transit oriented district probably makes sense for that quarter. as of street parking has evolved. of the van ness side district,

you can hold those restrictions. something that is not allowed in other districts and disallowed in nc district is advertising signs. considering we want to pack a lot of residents into the corridor, allowing giant billboards to relocate is probably bad policy. we would urge you to if your recommendation is to keep it in place, get rid of the permitting those giant billboards. that is a piece of business the city has voted on and we do not want those billboards in neighborhoods, especially in a neighborhood like van ness that is so dense. thank you. president fong: is there additional public comment? commissioner antonini: a question on the parking. in the rc 4 and the bana

specialist district, there is now minimal requirement being proposed, is that correct? it would not have to have that if you opted not to, is that correct? >> correct but it is points -- 0.375 and 0.5 for the rc 3 and the van ness quarter. >> that is my question. i think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding in regard to my comments. i am not asking their be a minimum requirement. all i am saying is we need flexibility. these are policies that will be with us for a long time to come and if we make the maximum to restrictive, we will disincentivize this projects

that need to have parking and need to cater to families and others who need cars. they cannot or will not choose to have the car parked in a garage a few blocks away. it would rather have it within the building. we're not saying we have to build parking one to one or even 0.5 or even 0.375 but we would allow that in van ness. if i were not going to make a motion -- i will not make a motion that but it will be to approve as everything is proposed except for three things. staff -- along with staff recommendation for grandfathering that is in your report and also for your comments on the special sign district. but then i would want to see an allowance as a right for van ness to have parking one-to-one if they so choose but with no minimum requirement.

an>> would that be 0.5 along van ness and the cu with one to one? >> the problem with having the cu, it would -- we have to have a long discussion. i would rather have no requirement. and you said it is -- one of these is 0.75 and the other is 0.5 for the rc districts. i would say 0.5 billion both of them. i am not sure why there is a difference between the two with 0.75 with the cu which is different from what you have. you're starting as a right from .5 in the rc 4 if i am not

mistaken. >> the desire was to mirror the current parking requirements except to get rid of the minimum. right now, the permitted amount is 150% of the minimum. once we took out, 150% of nothing -- i did not get that far in math class. that 0.375 is 150% of 0.25. that is why that is in there and that is it. we were considering before taking away they ban us entirely to have to go back to rc 4 so it went to change and ness and change rc 4.

that has been something that was talked about at a previous discussion. with regard to the maximums, where we have been moving is to get rid of minimums and lower the permitted amount so that when the commission does decide to go higher than the permitted amount, it is in consideration of projects around the -- issues around the project. the commissions grants amounts above the permitted amount regularly. there might be some disagreements of what you can go up to. >> we have not had many successful cu's in octavia. i can see that arguments could be made in that area which is more residential, denser. van ness is such a diversity of different uses, i could easily

see buildings being proposed that would want to have one to one and would probably have to handgun meeting that. a lot of them filled with very little parking. we are hearing things that are proposed we're a lot of rental residential will be built closer perhaps to van ness and market that will have a lower ratio of parking and higher density. we have to be flexible where we are backing ourselves into a corner. that is the reason for my proposal. >> very much appreciated. commissioner miguel: i would like to thank the department and supervisor chiu's office on bringing this into sections. on coming down to a fair agreement on things, i cannot see personally why the van ness does not go straight to the rc 4 requirements.

but rather than trying to fine tune it further, i am going to move that will accept the -- we approve it is stated with the recommendations that have been and move it for me that way. >> i am -- >> we recommended not changing that or sending in a way for further study. commissioner miguel: i will go along with including that. and further study. >> you want that item to come back to you as separate legislation or to continue the chu legislation to come back in a couple months? >> i would -- i think my motion

would be to approve the department's recommendations, including the recommendation that should be looked at for their. >> not included in the current package? >> right. president fong: is their second? -- is there a second? >> commissioner sugaya: if the grandfathering clause was not in their and the legislation went out of here, went to supervisor chu and went to land use and got adopted by the board, with the provisions of the ordinance take place immediately on projects that have not been approved? >> it would apply to projects

that have not pulled their final permit. besting applies when you apply for your final permits. there are a number of projects you have not approved with one to one parking that would with a grandfather in provision be allowed to go ahead and approve them. >> most of them have not started. >> it would have to lower their parking. the point of doing this is to say you haven't -- you have approved a number of projects with a certain amount of parking and for purposes of grandfathering to allow those projects to go forward. >> they are basing their financing of it. >> that was the thinking. >> it is not my problem. anyway, i understand where this is going.

you take your chances any time you are a developer. they're not invested in these projects. we do not know if they have financing. i cannot vote for the legislation because of that one particular reason. commissioner antonini: i would argue the opposite. argue the opposite. i think -- we went through this

i completely understand your need and the need of the city to have a one-to-one. this area is transit rich. maybe one of the richest and i do not think there is here to fore five-bedroom homes where cars will be one and two bedroom and studios where one car -- if there is a car going to occur. i am sympathetic but in this case my personal feelings is

less parking is doable in this area. commissioner wu: i wanted to ask about the special sign district and the request around the general advertising sign. if you could explain how they're dealt with. inthe motion -- the motion is to study it further. if you could explain how it exists now. >> it allows general advertising signs in the van ness advertising district. you can move the general advertising sign but only to this neighborhoods -- the neighborhoods who allowed a general advertising sign. the motion as it is stated, could this be part of the further study? do we need to take some action

on it now? i think that would be my recommendation. commissioner antonini: one final thing on the parking and i appreciate your comments. we're talking about one car per unit. in the event that someone feels they want to build that and does not mean they have to. there is a big difference between a maximum and minimum. that is my point. when you have a family and you have a lot of things that go with children, sometimes a couple of blocks carrying things with you and makes it attractive. willow for that. it is comforting to know that we are grandfathering in some places that hopefully will be billed that will allow for that demographic as part of the future residents in van ness. that was my point about allowing the opportunity for a

project to have enough parking, not the requirement they have to have it. >> if i understood the suggestion, it was that we could pert -- take action to ban the general advertising sign in this motion. there are other provisions, is that correct? >> you could say -- >> that seems fairly reasonable. getting rid of the special sign district we think needs more study and evaluation. prohibiting general advertising signs seems pretty straightforward. >> i do not know if the commission will entertain an amendment that would add banning general advertising signs only and studying the rest of the provisions through the sign district. president fong: movement

accepted. >> the motion before you is to approve excepting staff recommendation with the amendment to eliminate two -- to ban general advertising signs. on that motion, commissioner antonini, no. commissioner borden, aye. commissioner miguel, aye. commissioner sugaya come aye. commissioner wu, aye. commissioner fong, aye. the motion passes. you're now on item 12. zoning map amendments and the special use district 1,

waterfront special district used to in three and special districts for sign elimination and special districts for cynics streets. >> for this one we would ask you not to get rid of these actions in district but delay the special sign district for elimination from the zoning maps. >> repeat the last part again? >> keith a. van ness special sign district on the zoning map but delete a special sign -- delete the van ness from -- elimination from the zoning map. that would prevent looting, blinking signs. -- looming, blinking signs.

it is an old code provision that was not deleted. president fong: is there any question or comment? is there a motion? >> so moved. president fong: is there public comment, my apologies. seeing none, is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> on the motion to except staff recommendation. commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, aye, commissioner miguel, aye, commissioner sugaya, aye, commissioner wu, aye. the motion passes unanimously.

>> think you for your work and patience. -- thank you for your work and your patience. >> you are now on item 13. case no. 2011.1439dd for 2539 vallejo street.

>> the case before you is a staff initiated discretionary review as well as a neighborhood initiated discretionary review. this is a late submission from the d.r. requestor which is the alternative proposal. it was submitted after that deadline. i am passing it out now. the subject property is on the south side of alito -- vallejo street. there is a single family residence. it is 40% of a lot. the existing building has no set aside. it slopes