weeks and divided into three teams to analyze the problems of chinatown. it was a remarkably insightful analysis and interesting set of recommendations that came from students raging from the age of just graduating from high school to a genius and seniors already enrolled in college. it was a wonderful event. the planning department attended in addition to supervisor kim and people from supervisor chu's office. he was very of the. i do hope the planning department engages strongly to teach young people about urban activism, planning, and design matters. i was very impressed. >> it might be nice to schedule a time for them to present to

us. even for 15 minutes, their findings. commissioner moore: the students themselves are off to various destinations. i encourage gloria florez to keep the record of these findings as part of the base data for when this department moves into looking at chinatown. commissioner olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: during the week, i have met with the jewish home regarding their institutional master plan that is in process of the moment as well as with representatives of the california nurses association. commissioner olague: thank you. we can now proceed to the directors report and review the past week's events.

>> just one announcement today. i wanted to let you know the staff is conducting a second workshop on the chinatown- broadway street design project. that will take place on thursday, august 16, from 4:30 until 7:00 at the elementary school at 950 clay street. it will present several plans for chinatown. double the august 16 at the cordogordon lau elementary scho. >> i am from the planning department staff here to present a summary of the planning and land use activities. this will be the last report until after the break. they are about to go on recess. there was no land use committee meeting this week. the first ordinance was the ordinance that would change the controls for the inner and outer clement as well as for a portion

of geary boulevard. you heard this motion on july 14. he recommended approval of modifications. supervisor mar amended the ordinance to include your recommendations but for one. he did not remove the prohibition on for resale and pet supplies as you recommended. although he did not remove this, there was a discussion with the land use committee and the board. the board of supervisors approved the ordinance on the final reading. also before the board was an ordinance addressing limited live performance. you heard this item sponsored by supervisor mirkarimi in july. it would create a limited permit for businesses whose primary business is not performances. you recommended it with modifications to extend an opportunity to several districts. supervisor mirkarimi did

incorporate your recommendations except for one. he amended ordinance so that entertainment use is not allowed in the western area currently undergoing a community planning process. the ordinance would initially limit these performances so that they stop by 10:00 at night. after one year, the permitee may ask to extend the hours for performance. this week at the full board hearing, board president chu and supervisor farrell introduced amendments for their districts that would not permit the extension of hours beyond 10:00 for several commercial districts. supervisor farrell also amended the ordinance to get a noticing provision where interested parties could opt in and be

notified but future permit requests if they wish. the board passed the ordinance on the first reading. this week, the board also established their own response to the civil grand jury. i know you will be considering that later today as one of your items. the board this week approved the resolution the disagreed with the civil grand jury on their findings 1 through 5. they incorporated the other responses as their own. this resolution was adopted with a 6-5 vote. we have an appeal of the document for 1945. on june 16, you heard a discretionary review on the related project to convert a parking garage into a three- story residential building with 17 parking spaces and some commercial space.

at the hearing, you modify the product and included additional setbacks. the russian hill community association appealed and stated the project would have a range of significant impacts not identified in the exemption. however, the appellant did not specify the exemption be considered to be inadequate. instead they asked the department respond to more than 70 pages of comments submitted during the review. these comment letters made a variety of points about the character of the site, the surroundings, the historic resources, transportation, existing plans, policies, and noise, and aesthetics. given the upcoming recess of the board and requirements for holding the term hearing for an appeal, the department had to prepare a linkedin response in short order. the department quickly prepared a thorough response to these more than 70 pages and explained how the exemption adequately addressed each topic.

this took over 100 hours of staff time to prepare. with the additional material, we again concluded the project qualifies for an exemption under section 15 332 and has no significant impact. at the appeal hearing this week, the appellant and their supporters failed to appear and provideed the board with a letter stating their continued objections to the project. after short presentations, the board upheld the cadex. there were no new planning ordnances introduced this week. that concludes my report unless there are questions. commissioner olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: we have this process where people can appeal things. i think it is incredibly rude if they do not shot. i feel like there should be some sort of financial penalty for people that do not show up.

we allow them an appeal. we do not charge the much to do so. it seems to me the onus is on them to least show up. there should be some sort of penalty. i do not know how that works out, but we can substantiate the staff time it took to prepare the appeal. i feel like we need to discourage this from happening, particularly because of the amount of time invested in the project response. it could have been invested and other issues -- and other issues where we have similar needs. i do not know if that came up at the board meeting with the members when they were considering this. but maybe it is something we should suggest that they do some sort of penalty for failure to show. but there was no discussion among the board increasmembers. we can look into this issue and get back to the commission. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you. >> the historic preservation

commission did meet yesterday. the two items of note were the draft environmental impact reports for the america's cup and sf momoa. the commission decided not to draft a letter for moma. there was only one real concern. staff made a note of the concern. for the america's cup, there was no public testimony -- relief for either of those items. the richest commission comments. they decided to continue the item, leave it open for their consideration at the next hearing. there might not be any concerns at that hearing. they wanted the opportunity to take more time to study the document. commissioner olague: thank you. commissioners, you are now a general public comment. it has a duration of 15 minutes. at this time, members of the

public may address you on items of interest to the public. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. keep in mind you not addressed the commission on any item listed on the counter and that he must make all of your comments within the 15 minute time limit. i do not have speaker cards unless there are cards on the rail. >> is there any general public comment on items on the agenda today? >> i wanted to comment briefly about the seqa appeal issue. we were counsel to the project sponsor. we put in many hours and dollars of my clients time into responding to the p.o. and preparing for the hearing and showing up at the hearing.

because great attention to the need for a definitive ordinance that regulates seqa appeals. we have not had one for the eight years that these appeals of gone to the board. supervisor eliot-pier tried. it ended up not being adopted. there is no current sponsor. i would encourage you to direct your staff to work with the board to develop a comprehensive appeal ordinance that would require an appellant to specify the grounds for appeal and give a time frame within which the appellant needs to submit the documentation and briefings a couple of weeks before the hearing so that the staff knows what to respond to it and what the appeal is all about. the current procedure has the appellant and planning department staffs submitting the documentation on the same day. the staff has no idea what the

appeal is about because the letter can be one paragraph. this was a one-page letter. there was a waiver for new association. they did not have to pay anything to file an appeal. it then put in motion this incredible process and 100 hours of staff time and our time to eventually respond to an appeal that was frivolous. it really calls into focus the need for a comprehensive ordinance that would regulate how these appeals are handled of the board. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you. this item is closed. we're trying to form a subcommittee around small business and the mcd issue that came up. maybe we can look at something around ceqa to make recommendations to the board

rather than just have them do all the heavy lifting. maybe we should do something along those lines. we can discuss it further. we will discuss it at a later date. if it is not on the calendar, we cannot discuss it. >> with that, we can begin the regular calendar with item 14. it is for 55 laguna street, a request for a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. i am david lindsay from department staff. i will be presenting this case today. before i begin my presentation,

i am going to hand out copies of a revised draft motion that contains a couple of additional provisions to the ones i sent out earlier in the week. i am also going to hand out copies of the costa hawkins agreement signed this morning for the record as well.

i will point out that in the revised draft motion dated august 4, 2011, the changes i am talking about that were made today are in the green type. one inserts the date on page two. in condition 11, it inserts a sentence that talks about the recommendation of a memorandum of disagreement that has been handed out to you. the 55 within a project was approved by the planning commission 3.5 years ago. the project included two housing components, a marker 8 component of units that would be constructed and located in new

buildings and in the renovated woods. the other component was unaffordable senior housing component of approximately 110 units welcoming to the senior lgbt households to be developed by mercy housing. under the original approval, 15% of the market rate units were to be constructed as on-site, below market units. the project before the commission today proposes to modify conditions 20, 21, and 29 of the planning commission motion to allow a hybrid exclusionary -- inclusionary

portion. the modification would allow the provision of approximately 32 units and a maximum of approximately 50 units of the requirement as on-site units. if less than 15% are provided, payment by the developer of the market rate component of the affordable housing feet of up to approximately dollars and 6.3 million to comply with the planning code sections 4 and 5. this change from the 50 units included in the original authorization has been necessitated by the mayor's office of housing's inability to immediately fund the senior housing component of the project that the moh committed to in the in original entitlement process.

this hybrid proposal, the mayor's office of housing will have a year to secure the additional funds to meet its subsidy commitment to the open house component improvise some or all of the remaining 18 units to achieve the original 50 on-site bmr units. the senior housing to the limit would remain 100% affordable. -- the senior housing unit would remain 100% affordable. we have met with representatives to discuss alternatives to the original proposal. the process and results of these meetings are outlined in the july 25 letter submitted to the commission by the mayor's office of housing. a copy of this is in your pockets. the approach agreed upon has wide support from several neighborhood and community groups including the lower h

aight merchants association and the housing rights committee. as of today, 35 letters and approximately 70 emails supporting the proposals have been received from individuals and organizations in addition to a resolution adopted by the market advisory committee indicating their support of the current proposal. i will hand to the secretary 15 support letters that arrived following the distribution of the commission packets as well as the 65 emails in support of the project.

commissioner olague: commissioners, i would like to indicate if you would like to see them. i need to have them back as part of the record. they should not be recycled. >> the department believes the proposal before the commission today is supportable and would provide up to 50 affordable housing units. it would retain the approximately one attend affordable senior dwelling units as of the originally approved in 2008. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code in the special his district. the project is consistent with relevant objectives and policies of the general plan as well as desirable for and compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood. the department is recommending the planning commission approved the additional use authorization as revised in the august 4 draft motion to modify conditions 20, 21, and 29 to allow fulfillment of the planning code section by providing a combination of on- site bmr it is and payment of the affordable housing the. commissioner olague: 80. project sponsor? -- thank you. project sponsor? >> on behalf of the three project sponsors, i wanted to indicate that we are also in agreement with the hybrid resolution described to you. partners would be willing to pre-paid a good portion of the

affordable housing fee. that would allow the open house project to move forward with the ground lease payment at that time so the entire payment could be made together. both projects could move forward together. that is a prerequisite for moving forward. we're very pleased the consensus has been reached. we're thankful for the neighborhood and community organizations that came together with the mayor's office of housing and my clients to work this out. we're pleased with the consensus that has been reached. i do want to note this approval does not in any way change the physical aspects of the project you approved in 2008. we may be coming back to you in the future for modifications to that. that is not put before you today. the pod is intact and remains the basis on which we will be moving forward with the market rate rental project and the senior affordable project. i would like to introduce the

executive director of open house. >> my name is set up stillborn -- seth killborn. we work to create housing programs for gay and lesbian senior citizens. these units will be welcoming and inclusive of lgbt and all seniors. open house and mercy house strongly support as much affordable housing as possible including the 50 units of below market rate family rentals. we're very pleased that working with the mayor's office of housing and others consensus has been reached on how to achieve this critical goal. the need for the open house. it is very clear. i know others will be speaking to you in a moment. we need to keep in mind that thousands of lgbt people came to

san francisco to find freedom and acceptance. there are more than 25,000 seniors to live in san francisco. the development replaces in virtually abandoned site with a barbara, the verse community in the heart of the committee thus than one block from the lgbt committee center. i would like to submit an additional letter that came in today as well as 280 postcards' we have collected over the past couple of months in support of the 55 laguna project. we appreciate your support to move this project along today. commissioner olague: are like to open it up to public comment at this time. we have a few speaker cards. i would like to give people the opportunity to stand up to show your support for the public report to me not be inclined to speak.

-- i would like to give people the opportunity to stand up to show support for the project if they would not be inclined to speak. >> i am victoria grace. i did not know i would be first. i want to speak in favor of the lgbt senior housing at 55 laguna. it was mentioned how many lgbt people came out here to find freedom. i was one of those in 1976 back in the time of harvey milk. we need to keep lgbt seniors in the community connected to the community.

i want to stay active in this community until the day i die. i started looking for senior housing. most of the places on these lists work out of the city, way out and isolated. our worst enemies are in visibility and isolation. i am very much in favor of this to keep lgbt seniors in the community. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you. >> good afternoon. all of my life i have fought for things. i fought in the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the gayle liberation movement. now i am a senior and am

fighting again. i am so pleased that open house saw fit to include people outside their own building in terms of affordable housing. if i am a senior, i want to live in the america that i fought for all of my life. everyone should have an opportunity to have decent housing and achieve the things they want out of life. please let this go forward. do not leave us out in the cold. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jesse florez. i want to add my delight and congratulations to the folks of open house who are here. they have wonderful programs

better serving the lgbt community -- that are serving the lgbt community and many others as well. my understanding is this project will include others. however, it is about time in this amazing city where people come from all over the world for safety and support, is about time to have at least one place that could eventually serve the kind of -- serve as a kind of cornucopia for other programs to be created for other communities and served as an inspiration for other communities who might gather and join together in discussions to help bring about new programs as well. i must say from my own personal experience, a few years ago when

i did come here, i thought it would be wonderful to find a place like the one being proposed because the safety issue is a huge issue, especially as you grow older. i was speaking with a friend. my voice was loud enough so that people around heard me. i was very interested in this. i was hoping somehow this would get started. as i got off of the bus, this person said they knew weather was a building and this kind of thing was starting. they said it was within walking distance. i walked over to this place he was going to show me. the streets got less and less crowded. something kick in. it was too late he hit me across the forehead with a tire iron.