sb-375 process, the sustainable community strategy process. that bill requires us to do a 30-year plan. the arena allocation is i think 8.8 years. it is an odd number. the idea is regional agencies are doing better at coordinating those two things. the first time we did arena after sb-375 was passed they were not well-coordinated. it is getting better. it is shifting. as you know some of the preferred growth to larger cities where it transfers to the most served. it is better allocated and coordinated than in the past. there's still work to be done on that, however. it does front-loud some of the growth. the 30-year growth. it does front-load some of that growth in this allocation. the number is still relatively high, over 3,000 units a year in san francisco, which is beyond what we've been able to produce in the past, but it

is something that i think is -- reflects the demand i think in the region for new housing. we are proposing a hearing on the whole package, including the scs, so we will get you more details in the coming weeks. that concludes my presentation, unless you have questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anne marie rogers, staff, giving you a report on the board of supervisors and their land and use activities. because of the holiday there was no land use committee hearing but there were items at the tuesday hearing. the first was chinese hospital. the board heard two ordinances related to demolition of the existing hospital and rebuilding the office building. the new building would be a facility with 54 acute beds, 50 sealed, 110 feet. the commission approved these ordinances on july 12th.

the this week the board unanimously approved on first reading. then three ordinances before the board for second reading. we have talked about them, won't go over them inasmuch detail. it was the student housing ordinance * in which your recommendations were incorporated. the mills act, which incorporated components from both hpc and the planning commission, as well as an ada legislation. all those did pass on final reading. the ada-related legislation, when you heard it, did have planning components but since amended, so there are no amendments to the planning code in that one. there were a couple appeals to be heard tuesday. in both cases letters of withdrawal were submitted. those were submitted to get public comment but no action was determined in the ceqa determinations. lastly, 8 washington. as you were aware there

were sufficient signatures to qualify the zoning map amendment for consideration by the voters through a referendum. under the referendum process, prior to a vote by the voters, the board of supervisors has an opportunity to reconsider their approval to the ordinance. in their case the vote did not change there was over an hour of public comment and comment by board members themselves were relatively brief. by a vote of 8-3, again, the board chose not to repeal the ordinance. the issue will now proceed to the next available general election, which will likely be november of 2013. so next november. then there was one completely new ordinance introduced this week. i would like to share with you, supervisors kim and weiner introduced a bill requiring monitoring of student house conversions. this would be an annual requirement. it does amend the planning code. as such it will be

scheduled for hearing before this body within the next three months. unless there's any questions, that's the report for this week. >> commissioner antonini. >> ms. rogers, thank you for your report. just a question on the number 8 washington and the election cycle. there is not necessarily a june election in next year's calendar. i can't really remember. i think we almost always have a june election virtually every year, but i'm not sure if anything's been calendared for that. >> i can look into that. in that case i'm not sure about the specifics but i can look to see if a june election would enable it to be heard earlier than november. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim fry, department staff. the hpc met yesterday and had a very short agenda, so my comments to you will also be very brief.

the hpc met in less than an hour to review and approve three certificates of appropriateness for jackson square, alamo and liberty hill *. all were approved per staff recommendations. if you have questions about the details, i'm happy to go over those with you, but that concludes my report to you. >> thank you. >> question from commissioner sugaya. >> no. a comment on anne marie's report. that is if there is a june election, 8 washington will be on the ballot. >> the board of appeals, their last hearing was august 22nd but i don't believe i have been able to provide a report since that so i will give a brief update. three items. 4201juda, the beach motel. letter of determination * from 1997, continued to the call of chair for several years. the letter of determination

found it was a residential hotel, not a tourist hotel. the property owner was able to provide new information to the board of appeals that demonstrated this was a tourist hotel so it is in existence legal use. they have a termination date so they need to pursue a conditional authorization to use it as a tourist hotel. that would be before this commission in the coming months. the second was 135 el camino delmar. this was discretionary view and variance denial. this was the property next to the the sinkhole on el camino delmar and 24th. the commission had taken discretionary view and approved the project based upon plans that were submitted with the initial modifications and rebuild of the project in the late 90s. they had subsequently made many additions, which some that encroached on related

properties and needed variances but the commission was clear in going back to what you approved more than a decade ago. the board of appeals upheld this unanimously. the notice of decision order was issued yesterday, so now we will pursue enforcement with department of building inspection to ensure that they come into compliance with the commission's decision. the final item was 2101 washington. actually lafayette park. this was an appeal of building permit to do alterations to the park. there was an appeal. the board of appeals unanimously upheld the permit. just on tuesday a hearing request was filed so this will be heard again by the board of appeals september 19th, a hearing to determine whether or not they have a hearing on the item so we will keep you apprised of that as well. that is all to report. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. commissioners, if we can move forward on your calendar, you are now at

15-minute general public comment category. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission with exception of agenda items. the public may not address you on an agenda item during this category; however each member of the public may address you up to three minutes each, keeping in mind the entire category has 15-minute time limit. >> patricia voy, neighbors of merchants. a group of us from different organizations had a meeting just to catch up on what's going on in the neighborhoods. we discovered there is a lobbyist that in north beach and on polk street both went down, formed a bogus neighborhood association in order to get their approval through. i want you to be very careful of who comes up to see you because it's happened twice.

if anything comes up as a new business district of such and such, be careful on -- i discovered it after one of my merchants came to me and said they were busy in a meeting, real busy in the restaurant. people waiting until they are busy, then they say sign this piece of paper. to get rid of them they sign and find out they signed for an association that they didn't want to be a part of. and i want you to know this is happening. in the other cases the associations disappeared after the hearing. so i want you to be very well aware of what's coming in front of you and who it is. so this is an integrity issue. thank you. >> thank you. oh, linda, i'm going to miss you. >> any other general public

comment? next item, please. >> commissioners, you are ready to start your regular calendar. we will go back to item three and five on the consent calendar and consider those first. item three is case 2012.09417, amendments to san francisco planning code section 725.1. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron, katherine stephanie from supervisor's office is here to speak about the ordinance. i will let her speak before i do my presentation, thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners. katherine stephanie for supervisor mark beryl's office. * this is before you after supervisor weiner's legislation passed, consolidating many of the restaurant definitions that. inadvertently changed the liquor license

controlled in the union street neighborhood commercial district, so this legislation does two things. it reinstates those controls and requires a conditional use for limited restaurants, which is a new restaurant definition. we met with the union street merchant association and golden gate valley association, which is the neighborhood association that represents most of the homeowners in the union street neighborhood commercial district. everyone agreed on both these points. we have long fought for these controls. they have been in place for quite some time. they want them to continue. i notice that in aaron's report he mentions that it was never the intent to erase the controls that had been in the union street or various neighborhood commercial districts. also we had the support of supervisor weiner, who authored the original legislation and co-sponsored this to make sure our control stayed in place. if you have questions, i am

available. >> maybe later, thank you. >> as ms. stephanie pointed out, this would reinstate liquor license controls, inadvertently left out of the restaurant ordinance you passed last year. specifically it would prohibit new license type 7 and 49 licenses in the union street neighborhood and commercial district and require conditional use for limited restaurants. prior to restaurant controls when full-service restaurants had a full liquor license the planning code considered that a restaurant use and a bar use, so if bars were prohibited in the neighborhood commercial district then a restaurant could not obtain a full liquor license. as a result of the new restaurant controls, restaurants with full liquor licenses are no longer considered to be a restaurant and a bar so long as they operator as a bona fide eating

establishment, which means 51% of gross receipts comes from sale of food. union street neighbors had banned bars not only with intention of banning new bars but banning new license type 47 and 49s from coming into the district. when the planning commission adopted the ordinance it recommended all restaurants be printed in each commercial district. this was the department's preferred option because it took the least impactful use and allowed it to be principally permitted and reduced process and allowed businesses to open without going before the planning commission; however we also realized some neighborhood commercial districts may not want more limited restaurants. we expected that the board of supervisors would amend this in their districts, so either require conditional use or prohibit them outright when the

legislation went to the board or trailing legislation, happening with this. this puts back alcohol controls inadvertently left out of the ordinance. based on community feedback it changes code to require limited use for limited restaurantings and cd. staff's recommendation is approval with modifications *, modifications very minor to remove restaurants from new prohibition on full liquor licenses. by definition, limited restaurants can't have full liquor license so this is contradictory. it doesn't need to be there and is confusing so we are recommending you have it stricken out. the that concludes my presentation, thanks. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> i have a few questions for aaron probably. okay. so the report says that the

limited restaurant is one that is not permited to have on-site alcohol consumption. >> correct. >> which includes beer and wine. >> correct. >> so that would require a cu by this legislation. >> correct. >> in case of the other restaurants that is a 47 or 49, which i think is probably some are beer and wine and the other is all kinds of alcohol, if i'm not mistaken. >> 47 is for beer and wine and liquor, 49 is seasonal. >> i forget if it is just beer and wine, forget the number. >> 41 is just beer and wine. >> yeah, 41 just beer and wine. these would be different types of full liquor license would be prohibited but you can obtain someone else's in the district or citywide. >> only in the district. so if another restaurant went out of business and sold it they could transfer that to another in the district. the idea is to keep the

same number of them that are already there. >> okay. i guess my question is -- that i always thought when you wanted to get a liquor license that you had -- in terms of abc you had to obtain one in existence but they do issue new ones now? >> they may. i'm not entirely sure but you can pull them from different parts of the city as well, so this would limit it. >> so the key difference here is the restriction is that you have to obtain one from a restaurant that is in the district as opposed to getting the liquor license from somewhere else in the city. i think in almost all cases you have to acquire one that is already in existence unless -- i'm not familiar with the changes of the rules. that is the way it used to be. i guess the intent is the supervisor wants to keep a cap on number of establishments that are providing particularly full-service liquor service. >> yes, that is the intent.

>> okay, sure. thank you. >> no problem. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. i guess i'm annoyed by the process. we spend a lot of time on this, the board of supervisors spend a lot of time on this. now all of a sudden we are getting amendments. how many of these do you think will come back from various districts and various ncds. you have any idea? >> i haven't heard of any. this is one -- the first part was inadvertently. we did go through the specific targeted controls in the neighborhood districts and tried to adopt new policies, new definitions to this and missed this one. just didn't understand the consequences of it. >> i guess i don't like the word inadvertent because i didn't vote on this with an inadvertent thought. it was in front of us, we understood what it meant and would apply to all ncds in the city. if we -- we didn't get individual testimony from ncds, i don't think, maybe we did, about restricting, you know, their own

individual areas. so the whole intent of the ordinance seemed to be to drive toward less conditional uses, more liberalization, or whatever, to apply to the city. now we will get bunchs of ncds saying, oh, we didn't think of that and want to reinstate the old controls. if we want to reinstate old controls, why did we pass this? the first place? >> when i say inadvertently, that was the department didn't include in the legislation, before the commission. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a clarification on commissioner antonini's point. right now, or before this legislation, sorry, there were -- new bars were banned -- >> correct. >> unless you acquired a liquor license. that is not changing. you are trying to rollover the rules. >> right. new bars are banned.

but the way the old legislation worked is a restaurant couldn't get a full liquor license because bars were banned. correct. >> now we change the definition, which actually i think was changed after the commission voted on it to allow restaurants to attain full liquor license so long as they operated as a bona fide eating establishment, consistent with the abc's definition, so we tried to align with abc. approximate f the goal is keep things consistent with union street before this *. >> correct. >> i'm generally not a fan of banning bars. i would rather cu, if neighbors are concerned. but given the fact this ban was in existence -- >> bars were banned, still banned, new bars, but this is for restaurants with a full liquor license. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to partially agree with

commissioner sugaya. on the other hand i believe the process is good. if we discover something needs further refine. and you are calling it trailing legislation i'm in full support. these are complicated. it is difficult to have the full game board in front of you when you create new legislation. this is just really reminding us that the neighborhood commercial district rules basically trump the larger ideas of how we want to globally change legislation. >> commissioner antonini. >> maybe i could ask a question for ms. stephanie about intent on this legislation. i guess my only concern with this type of thing -- first of all i'm supportive, but there are different qualities of establishments and sometimes an establishment comes in and does a very good job of monitoring, you know, the consumption of

alcohol and, you know, pretty upscale. there's not the concerns that surround this, whereas the existing ones are allowed to exist even if they are a problem sometimes. that is the only thing. not to specify specific places, but something like desame, a spruce group. i think generally there aren't too many problems with people milling around and causing too many disturbances. i'm wondering the thinking in regards to this. does there seem to be a big neighborhood push to stopped a decisional restaurants with bar service? >> i think the merchants and the neighborhood are satisfied with the way union street is now there is a nice balance of services. we don't have too many bars, we don't have too many restaurants with the full liquor license. we are getting more small self-service or limited restaurants. i think there is a fear if you open it up so that now all these new restaurants can come in and get a full

liquor license and maybe have 51% of their sales be included but selling tator tots and chicken wings, then all of a sudden a bar. you are getting a different picture of union street. the controls have worked. they have been there quite sometime. when you have merchants and neighborhood association agreeing on something i suggest you move forward in that direction. we don't always have agreement on these issues. we fought really hard to getting a agreement. we would just, you know, like them to go back to the way it was. we don't always catch everything. you know, the whole word inadvertent, we wouldn't have the whole law of unintended consequences if we caught everything the first time things came around. we apologize things came around. certainly isn't our intent to bring unnecessary legislation in front of you. it is something both the

neighborhoods and merchants really want. union street commercial district is thriving, doing well. we would appreciate your support with this legislation so we could have the neighborhood commercial district that everyone is supportive of. >> well, thank you. i appreciate it. i guess the only question i have is possibly it could have been allowed by cu, you know. although the ban is probably what seems to be in place. for example the french laundry, they will have liquor license. they used to only have beer and wine. i have never eaten there. i have heard it is good. there is a movement in the restaurants, everyone the high end ones, for someone to have the ability to get a mixed drink. that is the only thing i want to make sure we don't discourage, really. high-quality restaurants from coming in by having too much process for them

to obtain the type of service they need to make it work. >> i think that is a really good point. it is one i will definitely take back the union street association and golden gate valley neighborhood association, because i'm sure these issues will continue to come up. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> commissioner borden. >> i just have a question. does this issue that we found with union street, were there other -- have we looked at some of the other districts impacted to see if other districts have this similar sort of impact? >> we know we went through the code pretty thoroughly to try to find these. this is just one of those de facto. we didn't understand the intent of the neighborhood, so we haven't found any yet. >> okay. >> it has been out there for quite a while. it seems to work pretty well. >> i'm supportive because we were trying to make it, you know, better alignment. but i was just asking in this specific of a situation if there were other neighborhoods with similar kind of controls in place. i know we also in the last few years have eliminated a

lot of those neighborhood controls or reduced because there were controls actually on number of restaurants overall that various neighborhoods have, but this is not affecting that. this is more speaking to -- >> more speaking to the -- >> yes, thanks. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i guess i don't like the direction of some of the conversation going on around these restaurants because all of a sudden we are saying the high-end classy ones are okay but the ones that serve chicken wings are not. it doesn't sit well with me to get into characterizations of types of restaurants and perhaps by extension the type of people who are going to be there. sorry. >> commissioner antonini. >> i wasn't implying that.

though i wasn't the one. i wasn't saying you only want high-end but the concern of the golden gate and merchants and population on union with oversaturation with particular emphasis on establishments that maybe don't do as good a job controlling activities of their patron ons the streets. my analogies were just to point out that, you know, just because you add another restaurant -- full-service restaurant with a liquor license that includes on-site alcoholic consumption does not mean you will have an increase in, you know, an unacceptable behavior from that. it could be from any type of restaurant, regardless of what they are serving. that was the only thing i was trying to say. sometimes conditional use process gives you the idea to pick and choose and see what kind of impact this establishment would have. i'm fine with this if the

other members are. i have a lot of confidence in the supervisor and the work of the golden gate neighborhood association merchants. union street. could always reconsider this at some future time if it doesn't work. >> commissioner moore. >> move to adopt ordinance with modifications suggested by the department. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion is for approval as proposed by staff on that motion. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> no. >> wu. >> no. >> thank you. motion passes 6-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. * >> commissioners you are on item number five. >> thank you. >> number 2012.0548c for 38th street, conditional use authorization. approximate >> commissioner moore.

>> reason why i pulled this off consent is only give her the opportunity to explain the background why this is in front of us. it is somewhat unusual situation but clarifis the record by which this project being on consent could potentially be misunderstood by others. >> thank you. >> if you'd like i will go through a brief presentation to get a little background on this project. elizabeth wadi, planning department staff. this is a conditional use authorization to establish a temporary 24-space parking lot not to exceed two years at t 38th between market and mission in c3g. as part of the project it will be improved for landscaping and orn mentals, installation of three street trees and elimination of curb cut along 8th street n. terms of public comments the department is not aware of any opposition to project and has not received any additional comments since published. the department has found it

unbalanced, necessary and desirable at the location since it will provide off-street parking in a small facility that should not drive substantial traffic or impact traffic movements on adjacent streets. operated as surface parking lot more than 20 years, albeit without required entitlements with no complaints, i will come back in a moment. this is short-term and daily commuter parking. the project meets all other applicable requirements of the planning code. it is based on those finding that the department recommends you approve the project with conditions. now to go back to the point of the operation of the surface parking lot, we did do some additional research on the history of this project. unfortunately there's not a ton of history how it was able to operator more than 28 years both appropriate entitlements. there are changes regarding the issuing of permits and regulatiha