chinatown is really depended on the zoning for over the last 30 to 40 years to protect the neighborhood, to make sure that it is neighborhood-serving, to make sure that restaurants that are there serve the population that lives there. so there are currently five categories of restaurants in chinatown. i would argue to say that they are working. in another way, i think that we just do not know what the changes would mean. there have not really been like a simple fact sheet created. there is not in a way first to really get to understand what this means for a chinatown neighborhood. there are a number of changes come to chinatown but a city college is currently being constructed. chinese hospital will be constructed sen. central subway is under construction. this will change the nature of what is needed for restaurants, but maybe we need to look at it after our toward the end of the construction. so i want to ask that you please remove the chinatown excuse district and this version of

legislation. we can revisit it at another time when there is an opportunity to really make outreach to the merchants and the merchants associations. i want to end by saying that think we actually have a winning model of the zoning in chinatown right now. if there is really not a problem that we see needing to be fixed in the neighborhood, why change in why jeopardize that model? president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice president miguel: i appreciate the office of small business having commented and consider this item. i think this is an area where planning and small business have to come together more often in the future. i appreciated mr. marquez's comments come from someone in the legal field who handles small businesses.

and it makes me think of something that often bothers me, which is the fact that it is my feeling that commercial realtors, or any realtor, who is handling a space and someone wants to buy the restaurant in is reprehensible, and perhaps bordering on unethical. if they do not know of research and inform prospective tenants of what has to be inspected of them. all it does is cause them, the owner of the building, the prospective tenant, the building department, and this commission problems all down the line. and that should be part of what they do straight out. a side comment, i a agree on it notices, and that is something the department is working on.

san francisco's restaurant role -- merchants will go anyplace in the country, let alone the world, and that is how we are known. our restaurants are constantly expanding, changing, and leading in that field. but it is very, very, very confusing. i appreciate cindy's comment. i would not move to remove chinatown at this point, whether the board of supervisors, the land use committee, or the full board decide to do it, it is out of our hands. i just want to complement the supervisor's office, the department, and everyone who has worked on this. they came to us with a very simple thing and originally had. we expanded its fantastically,

which i think was logical to do, and i am is satisfied with the way it has come out now. it may have to be tweaked in the future. we know this with all legislation. i do not think that is a bad thing. but we have to get it in place, and the simplification, to me, is very, very important. commissioner antonini: i really like this legislation. it has a lot to do with the kiss principle, keep it simple stupid. that is basically the easiest way to understand things, to get all the publications out of there. i do have some questions for aaron starr. ok, i guess the first question in category, and it went pretty fast, but my understanding is that the bar definition would allow all sorts of alcoholic beverages, full-service bar. >> correct. the bar definition is really not

changing. but the two definitions are being consolidated into one. commissioner antonini: and you have restaurant which is limited to beer and wine. restaurant ltd. would be no on sell alcohol, but it could be off sale, such as a store or something that might also serve some food. >> correct. however, restaurants would be able to have a full liquor license, so they would be able to serve liquor. but if they did, that would categorize them as a bar. that is currently the way the planning code operates right now. so there are the options for a restaurant to get a 47 liquor license, but if the neighborhood has restrictions on it, there would be subject to those restrictions. >> but when a restaurant moves to a 47 full bar, then they're no longer categorized as a restaurant. they are now a bar. >> probably two uses.

both the restaurant and eating. then you also have the bar. commissioner antonini: that was one of my comments. if you want to make it a little more understandable. you might want to make that full-service bar defined as a restaurant/bar, because it is both. you could have a bar that does not serve any food, although it would not be categorized as any kind of restaurant. it is confusing to call it a bar but it is actually a restaurant/bar. the term restaurant could be the beer and wine category peter just a suggestion to avoid some confusion. my other question is this, and i think you already sort of inserted. when you are depending on the neighborhood, your change in size -- say you're going to go above the allowed footprint, but you would probably have to go through a conditional use process, i would assume, to do that. >> right, to go above that size,

you need a non conditional use. >commissioner antonini: any changeup category notwithstanding what the abc is going to do, but some neighborhoods would require a cu to go from beer and wine to full alcohol. >> that is correct. others may not. and others prohibit it entirely. commissioner antonini: ok. that seems to answer most of my questions. i think it is good. i do agree with commissioner miguel that i think this has to be city-wide. when you start carving out parts of the city to have different categories for them, then i think it defeats the purpose of the legislation. and i do not quite see anything as a problem here. all existing uses are presumably permitted. you're not going to be moved to denver category. you will be categorized differently, but you're

permitting you will not be changed. >> correct. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> commissioners, thank you for your comments. i want to thank everybody for their excellent work on this. this is a very focused peas and eating and drinking uses. there is the elimination of the video circuit court, which is probably not necessary. but there could be corresponding amendments to section 312, 303, and is dealing with the formula retail uses. currently, the controls apply to these types of uses. perhaps there will be a motion adopting the changes. i would also add in that the section 312 notification in formula retail use control would still apply. there's been no changes in that because the socks is on the eating and drinking uses the not want to make it clear that we're making these other changes.

commissioner fong: i am overall supportive of it. i think we can simplified language in the process. as it was explained for new business operator coming in, really try to calculate the risks of going into business if we can simplify and streamline, all the better. related to chinatown, i can understand. i think i would need to learn a little bit more. the supervisor level, there is an opportunity to make that change. at this point, i think we're better off going city-wide and studying it a little bit further. i would be willing to make a motion to approve with recommendation of staff. >> second. president olague: i just wanted to also thank staff for all your work. also, thank the small business commission for taking time to review it. we do not always get input for other commissions that have

closer dealings with some of these issues than we do here. i am grateful for that. as for chinatown, i would support -- i would like to -- i do not know if the needs to be added to the motion or not, but to instruct the staff to encourage the board of supervisors to continue engaging in discussions with the chinatown merchants. because if it -- kind of cliche, if it works, do not fix it. something like that. if something has been working for the past, you know, 30 years, then maybe we do see exemptions occasionally to codes. maybe not a full exemption, but maybe some, you know, obvious tweaks. it may be that they want to update what they have going on in their community, business community also. so i would not say just throw it all out, but it may be that there are other considerations

or changes to make. i fully support this. commissioner moore: i just wanted to thank mr. starr and ms. rogers. i hope that mr. starr will do a sequel to his cartoon. [laughter] the two together would probably read very well on youtube with what can be done in the city. thank you. we all know that there is the ability and open doors with the supervisors to really prepare and hone down on some of those little things and what they need or do not need. i am very confident that by bringing it to everybody's attention that there will be further discussions. it was left wide open the there will be tweaks, and perhaps cctc will not be the only one. it needs tweaking to be as responsive as it is basically

set up to be. president olague: yes, it is a good start. >> commissioners, the motion is for approval with staff recommendation with the added language from the zoning administrator. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> yes. >> commissioner fong. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. vice president miguel. president olague. thank you, commissioners. it passes. >> someone to talk a legislative actions. i think there is confusion about that. the vast majority of legislation that your reviewing this commission is introduced by the board of supervisors. the first time we hear that, that is almost always when it is introduced. when it is introduced and send to you, there's a 90-day clock you have to comment on that legislation the issue a public process is very interesting. they're 40 to 50 pieces of

legislation that are created for the planning code every year, more than any other department code. we have a very seriously consider how and under what circumstances the additional public process would take. i would argue that in an ideal world, that would be long before it is introduced. again, that legislation comes to you already having been introduced in the vast majority of cases. president olague: ok, thank you. commissioners, you're now on item number 11, case number 2005.0233c, for 49 julian avenue. request a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning board staff. the project at 49 julian avenue

proposes to demolish an existing one-story industrial building and construct an approximately 10,500 square foot residential beating containing a dwelling units and eight ground for parking spaces, utilizing the eastern neighborhoods pipelines dennis -- status. the ground floor will have the parts played lee 2,100 feet -- 2,100 feet for the parking garage to the will be eight parking spaces and at least four class one bicycle parking spaces. the second true for its store will have a two-bedroom drilling units. it has planning code section 175.6e. it is a heavy commercial zoning district and a 50-foot height and bulk district. while confirming to1 articles 1to.2, 1.5, and 2.5, we're

requesting additional double- conditional use authorization to seek relief from the amended articles. the project is in the urban mixed use district and a 45-foot height and bulk district. the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will provide eight two-bedroom dwelling units. it will convert in non-use said into a productive residential use development. it is consistent with the neighborhood character. it is appropriate development and complements existing patterns. therefore, the department recommends approval for the project with conditions peter i am available for questions. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon. my name is tony, representing

the project sponsor. i have three pertinent topics. i will conclude by giving you a concise timeline of what my clients have been doing the last six years. my first point, neighborhood outreach and public notification. a public notice of this project receiving environmental review was mailed out by your staff in 2006 and again in 2010. and as of this hearing in 2011. i personally went door to door to the immediate neighbors to introduce myself and the project details. we met with peter and the are rebuilding on five different occasions. we met with richard, represents another group. we requested several meetings with their executive director and board members. we also met with garcia. we provided a thorough

notification and conducted an informational never been meeting on saturday, august 20. neighbors and attended the meeting. the subject building is not a historical resources or significant in any way. however, the project was reviewed by the historic preservation commission. the commission is in general support of this application. they have made two suggestions. i believe my clients have responded effectively by incorporating significant audit -- modifications to the building on below, by removing and reducing all rooftop projections, and providing a site said back along the south side of the armory building. those allow greater sun angle and light corridor for the south-facing windows for the of rebuilding. we have enclosed a draft copy of the supplemental disclosures. i encourage you to you toe in our information packet. -- i encourage you to go over

exhibit e. all legal uses and activities of the armory building. we intend to add all the fine details of the activities associated with the friendship house, directly across the street from the subject property. my clients are ready to execute and record these disclosures as part of a notice of special restrictions and conditions of approval. the application before you is a request for conditional used for residential use in the former cm zoning classification. i would like to present our findings of why we believe the proposed project is necessary and desirable and is consistent and compatible with the established neighborhood. since 2003, the planning commission has approved over 360 residential units on the subject blog and directly across the street from the armory building. of the 360 units, 230 are under construction today.

if i may have the overhead, please -- this vicinity map is exhibit d. it shows the immediate general area that contains residential uses in the parcels. all the orange parcels contain a residential use. of those, most of them are multi-unit, similar to the project before you. as many of you know, a 194-unit mixed use the building is under construction at 1880 mission street, also known as the mission gardens. unless there have been some drastic changes to the program, there are 46 veterans on six level -- bedrooms on six levels of occupancy. only 58 feet away from our property, directly abutting

another unit. residential use is it principally permitted use. for those reasons, i believe that the infilled project is necessary, reliable, and consistent with a mixed used development pattern of the area and compatible with the other residential units under construction. my client bought the property in 2004. they submitted their first publication in 2005. in 2006, they were instructed to wait for the rezoning of the eastern neighborhoods plan. in 2009, three years later, the plan was finally adopted, and residential uses -- again, it is a principally permitted use in the new zoning district. in 2010, we received a letter from planning staff encouraging us to proceed with securing our entitlements. it is 2011. six years since my client submitted his first publication.

this concludes my presentation. i respectfully request that you approve this conditional use authorization. the project architect is in the audience and available for any questions. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. victor, rick, michaela, antonio, ricardo. >> president olague, i am actually here on three different items that happen to be back-to- back. i am speaking -- we are in a couple of different hats on this item. i am victor, the former executive director just up the street from this project. long-term supporter of the

organizations, most of the organizations i have worked with that have submitted letters of opposition on at one in particular, history of over 20 years working with them. ycd, ldc, and cyc. the groups that are coming before you to oppose represent african-american, asian american, latino, youth programs, and they are opposing pretty vehemently, as you can see by the youth in the background here. they are opposing this project from going forward. there is obviously a disconnect between the local community and this project going forward. what i want to basically encouraged that there be further dialogue between the local

community and the project sponsor. it appears from some of the material that i have reviewed, that there still needs to be some of that the question is going to be whether that is going to happen before you take a final vote on this item or whether it is going to happen at the board of supervisors, which i think, if it moves through this commission, that it will end up at the board of supervisors. and i think that there is, from what i gather and what little due diligence i have done, as a community advocate and leader, is that there is support to bring this item before the board of supervisors. all that i am here to advocate for, on behalf of these various groups, particularly the youth that you're going to hear about their programs, a violence prevention and everything that is going on in and around the area. obviously this is something that

is a phenomenal issue in our committee, in the latino community. i just ask that you listen very carefully. obviously vote your conscience. but i would advocate, as a former civil rights lawyer of five years in the latino community, african-american community, and other communities of color, that this item be continued and further dialogue take place by the project sponsor and the local community groups that are asking for that to happen. thank you. president olague: thank you. i will keep reading of names. gloria, bruna, sylvia. >> my name greater thanrick. president of devine inc.. a member of the advisory board. i am associated with this

organization since 1982. that is when it was above mcdonald's on the 16th and mission. our firm has provided technical assistance in matters dealing with real estate, financing, and the affordable housing project. they have asked me to speak today, representing the board of directors and the advisory board. i would direct your attention to one of the statements made by mr. kim in his report to the commission. he said the project promotes public welfare, convenience, and necessity. we believe very strongly that this project promotes private gain at the expense of public welfare. and it developed, has absolutely nothing to contribute to the particular community or the area in which it is located in. there are some very significant

and fundamental differences between 1880 and this particular project. one is rental. one provides affordable housing. one has first source hiring requirements. one provides labor, job opportunities at prevailing rate should -- prevailing wage to residents of sentences go. anybody that is dissatisfied with the activities that occur in arriba juntos can essentially terminate their lease and move. because somebody is buying a condominium at 49 julian avenue for half a million dollars or $550,000, that will be difficult to do that particular time. i did meet with mr. kim. it was a rather long meeting. i told him very clearly the sentiments of the board staff in

the executive director. he just did not want to hear it. there is not one property owner on julian avenue that we know of that supports this project. not friendship house. not the owner of 1880 mission. not the armory. [bell rings] and certainly not arriba juntos. i direct your attention, please, to the letter sent to you which is outlining what the position of arriba juntos is. we believe there is no justification whatsoever in the planning code for this conditional use permit to be approved. it is in the inert -- and neither necessary, desirable, or compatible with the neighborhoods and the community. [bell rings] president olague: thank you. you can keep coming up. whatever order.

>> good afternoon, a commission. thank you for your time this afternoon. i am the program director of the northwest region of the san francisco community response networks. arriba juntos serves as our fiscal agent since 2003. we provide a regional violence prevention model that covers half of san francisco. our hub of service and central location is that 1850 mission in arriba juntos. we serve over 145 clients a year. from the surrounding areas. i am here today because, you know, we're dealing with the most marginalized youth in san francisco. of those 145 youth that we serve, we constantly, every friday night, have youth utilize

the space as a safe haven. given the magnitude of our services and the high-profile classification of our clients, we really do urge the commission to look into this a little further. we strongly urge the commission to deny this conditional use application, as there has not been any meaningful dialogue with our leadership body, with our advisory board that is made up of a key stakeholders in all these neighborhoods in which we operate, and we will lead to further discuss and possibly coordinate with -- what the budget impact would be on our services and our ability to save lives as well. again, this dialogue has not happened yet. so we are very concerned about what the ramifications may be of this project moves forward. as stated, it really is our belief, and there have been many letters submitted it as well from our stakeholders. again, urging the