i am not prepared at this time without further studying some of the propose d changes to anythig i am looking at before me. what i would like to status, though, is article 10 and 11. there was a couple of years ago a piece of legislation introduced at the board and i don't know where we are with that at all and evidence several discussions with different members of all communities really, affordable housing, communities of color and even preservation community to try to see is there a way that we can get -- it seems that we're down to maybe a few people that are never going to agree on some pieces and it looks like the

vast or many of the people i spoke with at least seem to have this with almost 95% and the 5% is the stickler. there was a third version that a lot of members seem to have concerns about. >> thank you, commissioner. tara sullivan. the legislation introduced at the end of 2008, we turned that around and both commissions turned that around and turned it back in as april of 2009. it has been sitting at land use since then. aaron was at the h.p.c. and has contacted the director and myself and that is a legislation that is pretty much dead at this point including the third version that was offered by a different group. article 10 and 11 is a hard animal because there is some acknowledgment that it's so

controversial that a complete overhaul may never occur and some hesitation to move forward and some people fear that will be the only change that occur to 10 and 11 for the next several decades and some people want to add more. and the director and the department want to acknowledge h.p.c. into the planning code and it is time they are recognized in the code and the processes are put in the code. the charter trumps everything and where the charter is silent, we look to the planning code. where there are conflicts, we have tried to eliminate them or answer your processes. and to answer your question it seems to be for now and the near future the one chance to clean up 10 and 11 to conform. however, the director did send out a memo about six weeks ago to the commission and we are starting to have talks with the h.p.c. and there are really maybe a handful designation and major and minor alterations and

staff level approval and there are a handful issues that are contentious between different factions. once all that plays out we are willing to bring forward more amendments within however long it takes. and for now this seems to be at least right now the first and only bite of the apple that we're having with 10 and 11. vice president olague: if it is the case that there piece of legislation if the former president peskin acknowledged it is no longer in play, i don't know that for a fact and as far as i know it is still sitting at the board, but i am comfortable with his acknowledgment of that. and then i think that this is something i believe the planning commission should have some input on. and if those conversations started at the h.p.c. level

around the more controversial items that were outstanding around demolition and when they do, they should simultaneously hear and as commissioner or president miguel mentioned, i think that ultimately what needs to happen is we need all meet jointly to go and have some public meetings where we can get into some because there might be some areas, maybe more areas of agreement than we suspect and areas we're never going to have agreement on but to have maybe be able to flesh this out before the board takes action on changing these codes. >> if i can clarify, we have not had conversations with the h.p.c. about these issues yet. the memo i sent to both commissions suggested that the strategy should be to present you with policies that the commissions could adopt as a kind of first step rather than full blown legislation.

and then that was the proposal for later in this year. but to be clear, wills not specific substantive conversations yet about these issues. and i think everyone agrees with what you said is there is probably a handful of issues that are the kind of collectively the crux of the disagreement. those discussions have not started yet. >> and i think that does need to happen sooner than later. and it that needs to be as much as possible an engaged dialogue with stakeholders and definitely p.c. and h.p.c. and to the extent that learn to synchronize our work, that is the ultimate goal to work not in what is happening is there is a weird power struggle or power play and that is not what i'm interested in. i'm interested in making this

work for the city and all the city's priorities and to balance those needs and not one issue always trumping the other or getting into these ridiculous moments. there are ways to work in a very compatible way. i think they would require joint hearings and building up that trust and relationship between the two commissions and having all members of the public also join in the same kind of conversation rather than having a lot of separate conversations where things aren't coming together. that being said, i'm going to go ahead and move we adopt what's in front of us. then to make sure the language on 311 is changed so that the

word access and i think that many of the amendments i see here not anything in the past 24 hours and everything that is in front of us since july 11 and including 311 noting language and i am ready to make a motion to move forward with this. >> second. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. >> i am not ready to move forward and there are a lot of questions i need answers to and can take the next hour to go through them i assume. >> i'm here. >> thank you. page 14, line 10, the zoning administrator and all that has been struck. could i have an explanation of that please? >> that was a request by the former zoning administrator that

deals with section, excuse me, with section 185, continuance of nonconforming provisions and this is a weird section. when the planning code was updated several decades ago and when it is continuously updated, any use that is basically not permitted in the new zoning and becomes a nonconforming use and there was an intent decades ago to phase out and require nonconforming uses to shut down. and part of that was to mandate that the zoning administrator has to give notes and dates of expiration of when the businesses needed to shut. he has to do it every four years. we have not been doing this and

the city policy has changed to allow them to continue and he ask we have this provision struck from the planning code. commissioner sugaya: this seems to me to be a planning issue since it is a recommendation from the zoning administrator that was just presented to us as a policy matter and not just cleanup. the language that's been used to present all of these amendments and changes within 470 pages of code has been couched in terms of cleanup as everybody has said. and has been described as a way to address clerical errors and things that didn't get published right in the code, etc., but here is an example to me, i think, where the commission should discuss whether or not this particular notification process is still proper or not proper.

page 23. we have b, action upon such uses and the lines that are struck out say shall be by the planning commission. is that something that we don't have jurisdiction over anymore? or is it something that should also be discussed like the last item? >> this actually is in conjunction, these changes are in conjunction with the legislation that was introduced this week regarding food carts and temporary use. we had a working group internally in the department to look at temporary uses with the former zoning administrator to the current acting zoning administrator and several other planners. and we wanted to update this

section. so temporary uses can be authorized, may be authorized by the zoning administrator as currently it is able to do. we did strike out the portion about the planning commission. i believe more legislation will be coming in front of you within the next 90 days that will take care of that and put it back in front of the appropriate section. it is not removing any power of the planning commission. >> thank you. i would soon leave it in if it is coming back with more corrective legislation again. and i am pointing out where there are language changes that don't appear to be necessarily

cleanup legislation and the same thing is true in section 209.3. and section 303 and 309.1 and 309.15, 309.12, 703.2a. and other play in the code. and i think the planning commission should take into account these are not just changes that are being proposed that are merely cleanup but have substantive policy issues and apparently no hurry here and i don't see why there can't be

discussion on items that commissioners like myself prinking up in the interim period. and unless we're not under any 30-day deadline with the board of supervisors are we at this point? as as that is my reason for not supporting the present motion. >> and to hold this over from the presentation from ms. sullivan, i agree with the maker of the motion and i don't believe there's any changing of the lawer or any significant changes that are not deletions that are inappropriate or repositioning of items in the document. but the other thing that's also important, my understanding is, if there is the desire in the future for either the board of

supervisors, planning commission, or where appropriate historical preservation to make substantive changes, that could be done or probably should be done. and so i'm in flavor of moving it forward at this time. >> commissioner olague. vice president olague: i want to encourage that, again, i think that i have said this loud enough, but we do need to have joint hearings with h.p.c. to talk about 10 and 11. we really, really do. and i think that is where this is going to have substantial conversations that will take place. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: it is interesting to me when i haven't heard any controversial issues come before us that involve h.p.c. decisions and ice versa. vice president olague: i think we're working very well so far together and it's been great really having this issue where it is. it's just article 10 and 11, i don't know, maybe there won't be any controversy and we'll have 100% agreement and that would be

a beautiful first in san francisco land use politics. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i think commissioner sugaya did point out a couple of things that were interesting but i think that what the cleanup and part of the discrepancy is is there is actual practice in things we're doing in the code that we nevada do and are there. we could argue perhaps we should actually do them, but i guess it makes more sense to have the code clear on things we actually do and make sure that everything is in clean with all the different plans that we have out there as opposed to waxing that we keep things and provisions in the code for the sake of the fact they are already there knowing that there's not intent to do those thing. and that makes a lot of sense and some of the things that commissioner sugaya pointed out were things that were not in the existing code and that is why it seems like a substantive change

but not if at all called policy and we can have a conviction about whether or not in term of notifications or the things that are brought up here and how we should be acting and we're trying to get better in those areas. and we should focus on that. and for the purpose of the code cleanup, i don't think this is the place to have that conviction. i think it is to have a more substantive conversation later about some of the practices and priorities that we care about in the context of what makes sense to put a policy in place that we would actually be useful and not clutter the code with things that are not really specific to bigger planning issues. when i see you must mail something to this by this date of expiration, it seems overly specific damage in a planning code anyway. >> but that is exactly what the neighborhood groups are

complaining about is notification and how that works. so it isn't the code and to say that present practice because it's being ignored should be codfied. seems to be backwards to me without having first discussed it. i give you another example on page 44 and one of the item on line 17 through 21, the notification process for medical cannabis now eliminates individuals or group that have made a written request or notify indicating regarding specific medical cannabis dispenseries. can you tell me where there' been included then? the language under notice just says 300-foot radius. >> tara sullivan, department staff, and this is going to be in attachment c.

once the department has determined that the abi willcation is complete and for owners and of courccupants for s than 30 days. and an earthquake mail to interested groups and was a simple omission. >> this is my point. how do we know people said they have read this and didn't strike anybody as being an issue that we should be addressing? that is why i can't vote for this. president miguel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: with the physical design on page 86 the issue of establishing that and the line 18 through 20 and that has been stricken. and when you move on to page 88 on the bulk restrictions, it

seems as if the restriction section has been eliminated with the reveference to the project applicant only filling out a form. unless i don't properly understand the language and the change relative to what is of concern to the commission. it might be in the luage, lost in translation here. but myself reading it as a nonlawyer, as a layman, i feel there is something not quite clear. >> commissioner, i would like to point out that that line that you are citing in section 309, we relocated because basically that is saying you have to file an application for section 309 or an exception to bulk per 270 and 272. if you go on to page 89, part d, it says applicant -- we retitled it because it was never clear what the application process was.

review subject to this section is triggered by submittal of a 309 application or a building or cite permit. it is the same thing but relocated. >> ms. sullivan, all i am saying is that you are skilled to read this and write it and immediately deed me to where i need to go. and in my position, i read it and say, oops, a major change and you have to go two pages beyond it to find it again and by that time my thread is lost. and there are changes if nothing else and i think it was expressed in this room. that it would have been good to have a blackboard and this is what it is, this is the way we're simplifying it, do you agree, is it clear? most of us are on the laymen end of things as well. i don't have the comfort to see this -- >> commissioner moore, that is why this is here. >> it is not in there.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with a one-word change related to section as the notice in 311. with access. >> that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners moore and sugaya voting against. thank you, commissioners. presid