commissioner borden: i think if we were going to talk about that, what we want to understand is the impact on different types of retail. not every type of retail has the same kind of impact. i think if we were going to bring down the conversation, that would be the more interesting thing to have. obviously, if you have pharmaceuticals, maybe there is a different impact you have been a clothing store. i do not know. i am just throwing it out there.

maybe there is not. i think if we're looking at ways to delineate the definition, we might want to look at what makes the difference. maybe it is the hours of operation. maybe it is the make waste they cause. i am not saying we need to change anything. i am just saying if we're going to look their retail, i think we should look at how different types of retail within that clara -- classification impact and neighborhood differently. and if they don't, right? commissioner sugaya: just for the public's sake, we're talking about establishments like cvs pharmacy, walgreen's, which commissioner miguel voiced his opinion he did not know what they were. i think i know what they are,

but maybe the code does not set that for work. i think that is where the commission is going, especially when we are talking about target, wal-mart, the larger establishments, and still have that makes -- mix. bigger than a department store. you know what i mean. president olague: yes. and commissioner fong attended a brown bag lunch that was very well attended, and it is interesting, the results. in the conversation, the idea of manufacturing came up, according to the census at least -- a high percentage of those jobs from

here in the city. at the same time, i think there is an effort to retain those jobs and that type of business here in the city. so, this is a non-profit called sf made, and at the end of the month, they are going to be touring some of these local factories and that sort of thing, breweries, people who make garments and this kind of thing. that is the name of the group of people are interested. i think the june to july, we will be having a talk on local manufacturing. it is not something we should rule out on the talk about job creation and some of the other types of industry coming in. it seems to me there is still a lot of vibrancy and potential in manufacturing. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: your

comments reminded me that in the paper it said the district that would experience the most growth would be too, forced, 6, 7, and 11. they have greater than the median norm of population growth. i was really surprised at four and seven. we do not have a lot of projects on that side of the city. which we obviously knew about, and 10, which was somewhat knew about. there is more development than we have approved there. it will be interesting to look at the census numbers, to kind of see if there was any growth and development in these neighborhoods or if there was more big houses. it will be interesting to figure out why -- particularly 4, 7,

and 11 had such a huge growth in their population numbers. president olague: there was a reduction in nine. a lot of families from nine. commissioner antonini: staff is just finishing this. the census data from my district. so, you should be seeing that. commissioner borden: what correlation is there between housing and other kinds of districts? >> i think so. i will look to that to be certain. >> thank you, commissioners. you can move on to the director's report, directors announcements -- director's announcements. >> thank you. commissioners, i have one in to call your attention to.

there is a memo regarding the japantown neighborhood process, and there are community meetings coming up there are three meetings. june 1, to 27 and july 31. -- june 1, june 27, and july 31. what is the time of the meeting? they are all happening at 1840 sutter st. at 8:00 in the evening, i believe. it does not have the time on it. as the community is looking at the planet that you had seen at about a year-and-a-half ago. they are booking added and recommending changes. these meetings will be held to get a broader view on the plan. again, june 1, june 27, in july

31. i think scott has something. >> i just wanted to remark on the legislation on the three frontage is sponsored by supervisor mirkarimi became effective. residential units seeking a parking reduction would come to the commission. that has been changed. now residential and commercial parking -- dcr districts -- can be reviewed and reviewed against a set of criteria, and this is under section 307-i. we had a few applications submitted prior to this becoming effective. some of those will not be coming before you because of the legislative change. others will be coming before you because there required

conditional use for other aspects. we have a hearing next week and i wanted to inform the commission of the change. >> good afternoon. commissioner antonini: i am sorry. the japantown meeting is at 6:30. start for the interruption. >> continuing on with the board of supervisors meeting -- this week on tuesday, the board of supervisors did hear a ceqa appeal for the 2004 housing element cir. the commission certified be cir this year. its address both the impact of the housing element as required by the board of appeals direction, as well as the essential impact of the 2009

housing element and proposed general plan amendment. this week, they expressed five main concerns. they changed from draft dodger draft 3 of the 2009 housing element and said there is potential environmental impact not analyze. they were concerned about the population growth. they were concerned that the cir might not contain a reasonable range of alternatives and the city might not have sufficient water for the project. the last item included supporting regional planning efforts that were not analyzed in the eir. planning addressed all the claims in the eir. on the basis of this work, the department successfully maintained that the eir was accurate, adequate, and complete. the board listened to all parties.

that concludes my report. there were a couple of items introduced, not introductions of new legislation, but rather legislation you are familiar with. this is legislation for the presidio, at 800 presidio avenue, sponsored by farrell, mar, and mirkarimi, as well as the miscellaneous technical amendments such as the clean code legislation and you heard last summer. as you know, the historic preservation commission has continue their hearings on the item, and until you guys reconcile the differences between the portion containing articles 10 and 11 and the historic resource amendment, staff will remove all the historic preservation alamance. the proposal before the board is

everything you recommended outside that, which we have been asked to vote on. that concludes my report. commissioner antonini: thank you for the report. on the ceqa appeal, who were the supervisors who voted to accept the appeal? the three, i guess. >> the three voting against were supervisor farrell, supervisor elsbernd , and supervisor carmen chu. commissioner antonini: interesting. >> was there a board of appeals report? >> the board of appeals considered three items that might be of interest to the commission during the first was a building permit for new construction at 1231 u conn. i want to highlight it because it was in the eastern

neighborhoods. they have an existing warehouse structure. they also had concerns about the property windows that we had on their property. the continued it for one month to discuss the matter. they allow time to consider that. the second was a jurisdiction request for 3423 market street. this was the matter that was before this commission on a conditional use authorization in december to modify the approval. we have had a history of enforcement action with the property. we had advised them as their right to go to the board of appeals, request jurisdiction,

and request that the board reduced the amount under 176, and they were assessed at to and $50 a day. there is some flexibility there. for unknown reasons, no one showed at the hearing to request the jurisdiction request. extremely frustrating for the department. we will continue our enforcement action on a project. the last item was an appeal for 1566 haight street. this also resulted from a jurisdiction request. we had a no violation penalty with an outstanding penalty amount of about $56,000, and the board of appeals can modify that penalty. they modified the number of days and the amount to be approximately 700 -- $7,000 in penalties. they have recommended that we

bring them before the commission sometime this summer in order to legalize the work they had done. that concludes my report. thank you. commissioner sugaya: mr. sanchez, on the property -- what was the -- >> it was a dance studio. >> ok, commissioners, if we can move forward. item #5 -- 2011.0149i. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. babson's first opens at the

mission bay location. the fast-track m.b.a. program is designed to allow business professionals to earn their mta. -- mba. post secondary institutions and hospitals have an application on file with the planning department. we're proposing to occupy less than 100,000 square feet. upon review of the imp, the commission did not hear a hearing on the abbreviated imp. staff believed it contains all necessary information and recommends the commission approved. if you have any questions, will be happy to answer them. >> thank you. president olague: project

sponsor? project sponsor? on this item? they are not here. so, commissioner borden. oh, ok. great. we would ask if you want to add anything to the discussion? >> no. president olague: ok. great. if we have questions, we know you are here. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: in the program, it reads quite highly about the rigorous educational value. they cannot own any real estate. all their people are working professionals. with that, i would move to close the hearing on the i.m.p. president olague: is there a second?

no, there is no need for a second. i forget sometimes. with that, the hearing is closed. >> thank you. the i.m.p. has been closed with the indication there is no public hearing. thank you. commissioners, we now move forward to general public comment with a time limit of 15 minutes. the public will address you on items of interest to the public within the jurisdiction of this commission. each member of the public may address you for a total of three minutes. the entire category does have a 15-minute time limit. president olague:harland hoffman? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. can you hear me? i'm here to address an issue that is on the calendar for next week but was hurt last week before the historic preservation -- but was heard last week before the historic preservation commission. i have documents for liberty hill that codifies hal liberty hill came about and also documents some confusion that occurred last week but i thought -- that i felt frustrated about, regarding trash enclosures. the issue is distorted from being heard by the historic preservation commission because of an issue regarding the portability of the trash enclosures. i have just one sheet, to look at these. and i have 14 or 15 copies of what i am talking about right now, regarding the bpw.

the issue falls through the cracks and it is frustrating. last week, staff and planning was saying because the trash in disclosure is portable, it does not go to the historic preservation commission, when in fact by dpw rules, it says the trashing closure has to be pinned down, to be permanently in place. it is frustrating when one department creates loopholes so someone can support the intent of all law. also, i would like to tell you about liberty hill, regarding a number of things to come under the purview of various departments. our community is clean. we do not have litter accumulating. the historic nature of the

community is preserved. does anybody have any questions at the moment? president olague: not at this time, thank you. we will review the information. i think we have a lot here. we have quite a bit to review the you have forwarded to us. >> thank you so much. commissioner sugaya: i was going to say at public comment, the commission isn't -- i don't want to say "allowed," but i guess that is the word. >> the commission may not engage you in conversation. >> what about prior to? is it proper to try to