>> let me remind all of us to turn off our self loans are anything that might make here. commissioner antonini: present. commissioner miguel: here. commissioner antonfong: here. commissioner wu: here. >> we have a full board. first is items for a continuance. amendmen planning cut adding section 24 9.66 to establish the art and design at a level 118 street. the item is proposed for -- at 1111 8th street.

related to bicycle parking requirements. case #20 11.0532t. compliance with the district -- item number four, 1266 9th avenue. continuance to april 19, 2012 i am not aware of any other item on his calendar proposed for a continuance. >> any public comment on these items? commissioner antonini: i have a question. i will movies, but odd item number three, part of earlier

legislation, we will get some new paperwork, i would assume? >> i asked staff about it and i don't know if they send anything back. >> we still have a couple of weeks before then. it will be nice to see. commissioner antonini: i will move items to the dates specified. >> on the motion for a continuance, items one through four as they have been proposed on your calendar. [roll call vote [ ] thank you, commissioners, the items have been continued as the have been proposed the next

category on calendar is the consent calendar. the item number five is considered to be routine and can be acted upon by a single roll call vote of this commission. there would be a separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission requests, and then the matter can be removed from consent and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 5, case for 2199 market street. a request for a conditional use authorization to convert the vacant commercial space into a formula retail use at the ground for that is doing business as verizon wireless in the upper market neighborhood. commissioners, i do have speaker cards on that item, so i will

assume -- and the question is if you want to hear this. >> the first item of regular calendar. >> with that, we're at commissioners' questions and matters. commissioner sugaya: yes, i'd like to have staff or whoever consider bringing notification when the department receives legislation from the board of supervisors for our consideration. that is not -- what i mean by that is that i assume that the clerk and the board transmits legislation to be considered by the board at date x. it is not brought to the

commission until another date, y. i'd like to have a memo or something that says this piece of legislation has arrived at the department. >> i have to read that i am not real consistent with that, but we get referrals from the board on a regular basis. sometimes i do send them to you letting you know that miss rogers and her staff will follow up with that legislation calling their analysis and review. and their recommendations to you. with your request, every time i get one, i will forward that to you. commissioner sugaya: i mean the ones that will eventually end up on our agenda, not just

the inquiries that come from the board. >> we identify the ones that will be coming for you. commissioner miguel: miss rogers, isn't that in your weekly email report? >> planning department staff, i go through a verbal description of the ordinances. we do for the ones for our policy review to the commission secretary. i can make sure that we will only get the ones that will be hurt for you. that will make it easier to afford the ones that will eventually be to you for hearing. commissioner sugaya: and you also send out an electronic version? >> that's right. hall so, we do a little bit.

on friday afternoon, i send an electronic version. and do you not get back? >> i think he weighed back we can request it. >> let me open that up again, and if you would like to be put on this e-mail list, i can send you a summary of the actions, what happened at the land use committee, and also with new legislation introduced as well as legislation recently that becomes effective. >> that would mean i don't need to follow-up. >> does the commission wants the full ordinance? the clerk does send the complete ordnance. there is a delay when my verbal report to you comes at this physical coffee from the clerk. it does come to us.

>> it is an amazing report, you will enjoy it. commissioner sugaya: just to make sure that you identify the ones that will eventually end up under our consideration. >> you can check the summary and ask for more. commissioner sugaya: during the past week, i met with people regarding the baker street project before us. and also at the request of president fong, taking his place at the civic design review committee. we just finished work on the two

large bathrooms in the mission district. it is amazing, being specific buildings, it doesn't come to us. the arts commission is doing everything that the planning department would normally do they do, i think, a relatively good job. i think a little more involved with the department would ease things along. we will work on that the next month or so. >> we can move on to the directors' report.

the directors announcements. and review of the past week's and events. the >> in the interest of time i will pass on my report. >> good afternoon, again. it has been a busy week this week. we are quite happy with a number of things that have happened. the land use committee heard in the ordinance that will change the controls -- this ordinance began over a year ago with some modest changes to the controls for video stores. when we told the commission about the ordinance, you encouraged the staff to gogol. unanimously recommended the downsizing the 13 different definitions. you also recommended allowing be limited rest ought to be permitted and incorporating some taylor controls for certain neighborhoods.

since your recommendation, it has been sponsored by supervisor wiener, chu, and olague. the sponsors and the department have continued to provide outreach by circulating the exceptional video by our own staff, it currently has over 34,000 views. producing fact sheets in english and chinese, indicating neighborhood meetings. he legislation has also received a great deal of press. the chronicle, huffington post, even the wall street journal. the chronicle also wrote in addition to their news story, an editorial with the new legislation. the ordinance now includes a consolidated section for the operating conditions there but

eliminating the need to duplicate the operating conditions under each of these definitions. it also makes specific controls for north beach that would limit the potential for restaurants and bars to displace the neighborhood of serving sales and services. it makes formula retell on broadway prohibited and makes limited restaurants permitted perm community request. perhaps the biggest change is a change in the way the restaurants are entitled to serve liquor. if a restaurant also serves liquor, it would need to be permitted as both a restaurant and as a bar use. in response from north beach, the ordinance has been amended to require that all restaurant serving liquor be bonafide, meaning they can prove that the majority of their sales come from the food portion. the land use entitlements will be made to better align with the

definitions, but this would now allow us to title a restaurant with liquor sales solely as a restaurant. these changes were made in committee. at the full board of supervisors, they heard the extension. it was an extended period of time where the property owners operated without proper permits and could submit applications and legalize their uses. when the commission heard the ordinance, you requested to modifications. she also extended the deadline the slightly longer, november 12, 2012. we also had discussed a number of articles, some of which were in direct.

the director has responded with a letter to the editor. this week, the board passed an ordinance on first reading. the board heard the public art and a board president chiu. it would require project a into a fund, if they choose. this commission considered it on october 27 and the recommendations that you made, they have all been incorporated in. you might be interested to know that the sponsors have further conducted of reach. it is amended not only to address your concerns but expressed the art requirement. the amendment would apply the

requirements to non-residential project to the same threshold. that would not start until after january 1 of 2013 and applied to the downtown district as well as some of other districts. it would also apply to certain properties that in the eastern districts, but only north. it would also apply to the properties except for executive part and all of the northeast. the past on first reading. last, conditional use authorization for 1111 california. the board unanimously upheld the

expansion of this use. half of the board approved that, the labor group filed a lawsuit that resulted in a department meeting to do additional work. however, while completing the work for the expansion, they needed a new one to continue with their existing use this commissioned again approved the conditional use for the continuation of the use. while other concerns were raised, the primary issue was the number of events that should be allowed in this place. i guess i can tell you there was an agreement reached by all parties prior to the hearing. to apply that agreement as part of the conditions of approval, they have officially issued anew

conditional use for a lesser number of events. no new legislation. >> height of rubber if this is part of the rest rough stuff or not, but what happens to the existing conditional use? >> it would follow the same procedures for how we deal with when the law changes for other entitlements. as a restaurant ordnance becomes law, it allows existing uses. if the commission or previous commission approved and applied conditions that were more restrictive, those would still apply. if you limited the powers or any other condition of approval, they would still be bound at the address. >> it involved limiting the

square footage in a restaurant for a wine tasting or something. that would still apply, and if we restricted the number of sea, for example, it would still apply. >> if it was a specific condition more restrictive than the existing law, it would still apply. >> do they have to come back to the commission for another c.u. or whatever? >> i should probably check with the zoning administrator and to get back to you. there are probably lots of them. commissioner miguel: i just wanted to comment on your report regarding -- i hadn't bothered