the city owns the garage which is a huge asset and mta has got to get involved but one of the assets we can use to implement japan town. so i support this >> commissioner moore. >> i'm touched and moved and inspired it the community came together as a community and a planning was able to play a major roll in this. this is a wonderful outcome. i'm obligated we saw it mutual in all it's aspects. i personally want to thank the commissioner who as a commissioner helped us keep the attention on your project on the forefront. he's been at least to me a great source of information and advise

and while when we didn't did you say outcomes together emphasis intimate nlz has helped me. i want to congratulate everybody and i look forward to support the project >> i too am supportive of the project and want to thank everyone whose contributed to it. it's been well done and i'm going to leave it up to commissioners is a >> i'd like to thank the community for its hard work manufacture or. some members of this commission were involved in the b m public works effort but everyone's fully aware of the importance of this document. it's a landmark document i fully support it.

it's built on the communities strong desire to retain it's heritage and it is the most expensive approach that we've had to date. the prior events mainly in the social heritage sdprikt are in that plan but this takes it a considerable distance further. i think that i was appointed as a city planning commissioner and this is a city planning commission. we have over the years approved many neighborhood plans the market or takeoff plan and the western plan and the he eastern neighborhood is its own kind of animal not exactly a neighborhood plan in my opinion

by in all of those instances even though western sill ma like japan town and market or staff were community driven and supported by the planning department there were many reiterate shuns of those plans there were changes that were made. i'm not proposing to make any changes to the dhs document but i'm going to make a motion to adopt the dhs document as city policy as stewart set forth as be it resolved clauses but i want the planning commission to consider another be clause recognize the planning commission that the committee supports the historic planning commission in its own

endorsement and the planning drifkdz they've given to the city staff. i think it's - the planning department directs its staff to work with rec park and the multiple planning agency that they port of the economic workforce development in japan town that the planning commission recommends that the traffic he helps dhs through the heritage travel program and the planning commission recommends the county of transportation agency work a little bit more closely and diligently on the gary street brt. my reasoning is as a sister commission i think it's

important to recognize the work that the commission has been doing also through this process and their resolutions were somewhat - well, i guess i can say totally different in some respects but i think they've diligently at yesterday's hearing considered the issues and adopted their resolution and i'd like to support that >> second. >> commissioner hill us and not knowing what the historic preservation commission did yesterday maybe you could explain that or react to it. i get your point about - it may be a boarder discussion about having us to recommended the

implementations but i don't know what they did yesterday but certainly they've got an aspect of this that's important to recognize >> i - did everyone on this commission receive the historic preservation resolution in their packet? i can read them if you want >> well - the 5 directives are as follows. that the historic preservation commission directs planning vice president, staff to complete the san bernardino county forms for the 1 hundred historic preservations for documentation. that the historic preservation commission directs the planning staff to work with the community

and the resource effort management including adding resources to the japan town social he heritage san bernardino county purging recognition for the resources and san francisco legacy bars and restaurants program and pursuing national registers and historic resources registers that the historic preservation planning commission directs the stapling staff to add the peace plaza and here's with their action deviated from what the staff recommended and the community had included. it says directs the planning staff to add did japanese language school and the japanese ymca. the peace placing to its work program for designating the sites as a culture sclabd and to

work with rec and park of the peace plaza and association with encroachments there to and it directs the planning department staff to conduct a clinic on the available historic preservation tools listed in dhs in fiscal years 2013 and fourteen and designate the information to organizations where tyler in san jose and los angeles and to sent to asian and patrick - pacific folks etc. >> i think those all sound

reasonable it would be good to get a reaction. i would recommend it being boarder if there's controversial elements to say that the planning commission recommend those aspects which i think are all of those. i don't think i'm - it takes it even boarder to what they actually did took things they maybe able to do in the future. >> would you like some. so as commissioner mentioned basically, what he stated was the language that was in the resolution before the historic commission there was one clause that was addressed that basically identified two buildings in the neighborhood to be added to the historic

preservation and those two building are the japanese ymca and the language school. and those buildings to be added to this landmark in process didn't mean they'll be landmark but as identified in the dhs at the time the resolutions were written the organization committee didn't have a feeling this was something they wanted to be identified but it didn't preclude them but it was something that wasn't agreed to >> and the plan didn't designate. >> we don't identify the peace plaza or any buildings in the plan. >> so the resolution took the next step. >> yeah, the peace plaza was

the implementation of the t did h s and the puc said to add them. >> those are the ago only two buildings that are added. >> is peace plaza correct. i would only add from the community standpoint this came in as an 11th hour that was following the discussion and two we had already received the letters of support from the community so it was - and not having a chance and time to circle back we stand by and i stand by the resolutions that are originally were submitted to you.

okay. the two buildings are in trouble historic resources and significant to the history of japan town and they're identified in the dhs listed among the historic resources so, now or whether all i'm suggesting is that eventually discussions will need to be held and those are two long time institutions that deserve the opportunity to have the discussions before we become a public item. so you'll i'm saying is that i feel we should support the original resolutions. that were submitted to you and in your packet >> okay. >> no i'll stick my foot in it

if i start to say something (laughter). >> my gut is those are obvious locations that should be considered historic but the junction we're hearing is so much work has been done i feel like the next step is to approve what's been worked on over the years. there's going to be a step 3 and 4 to it but to throw something into it the last minute to dissolve the congratulations is deserving today is important. so i'm with bob in learning towards the resolution that was proposed >> commissioner. i think we're not endorsing the conclusion or non-conclusion

directly here it's not part of our work program and not part of what we would do anyway i mean, the 4r50shgding any action would be an spc action and it goes directly to the board of supervisors unless there's some issue with historic district or general plan issue. so i think the way i worded the resolution merely endorses what the historic preservation commission itself has done well that's the intent >> i understand. commissioner borden >> if we were to vote for the resolution we support what the d h c has done but not agreeing to some controversial items. >> that's it. >> again, i recognize that the

community feels strongly about what's been vested and we've had before us and, i.e., totally get why people don't want to deter the process in the future but there's no problem with the d h c what they're proposing. >> commissioner. may i ask to confirm what commissioner borden as a seconder of the motion i want to make sure there's no down side the commissioner is just acknowledging the expiration of the landmarking so i want to make sure that's going to kwrnd correspond iowa the people have done >> it's in my opinion that it

would undermine the process because one of the actions was the addition of the one of two buildings to the work program that was not included in the larger conversation so it's a process and the department didn't disagree where the things have landed at any time a process issue. everyone can be comfortable but it's where the all of those two buildings but that's the difficulty i find in the process >> well, based on that maybe i should withdraw my second and maybe it cabaret phrased. >> just a - it's not think recognized here and they started

to implement it. so if we can follow the language for the planning commission and they recommended and implement those then himself >> that's fine. >> i get that yesterday but that allows them to do more beyond. >> so an amendment to his motion? then i'll second the amendment to his motion >> could you please restate and the commission recommends that the commission review the implementations felt o of the process because their left out. >> okay. >> so the maker of the motion

and commissioner you'll resecond that amended motion? >> yes. >> there's an amendment and a second motion on say floor to accept an endorsement including or all the time to include as a may it be further to direct the d h c to adjust their wording on that (calling names) so moved commissioners that passes 7 to zero. you consider or took accepted comment on items 7 and 8 so the matter of 8 is still before you >> commissioner okay keep going - i'm sorry i'm sorry. commissioner >> well, in that case, i

approve of the planning code and i assume as part of that motion we have to actually schedule a date to consider the recommendatio recommendations. >> that's true. >> over the 17 of the october. >> you're next hearing date after october well - you could schedule it on october 17th or the 24th. >> is the 17th open. >> it is open. that sounds reasonable to me >> whether we expected to have an acceptable date. >> i have no problem with the date and we'll speak with the environmental team and they'll talk about the outreach process so they don't know necessarily

how long it's going to take we can schedule it and move it back. >> we can probably e potential schedule it for the 24th. >> my understanding is we don't have to specify a date only to say it's no sooner than; is that correct? >> the resolution does permit after october 17th but i don't know if you need to schedule it now. >> we don't unusual schedule. >> so the motion would just acknowledge that the item couldn't come before you before october 17th and the calendar will not specify that so donates my motion. >> i'll second. >> commissioner. >> yes. i'd like to have the

commission credit two amendments one lowering is parking to .5 rather than .65 and i'd like the commission to consider eliminating the density calculation and use the number of units to be constructed within american people envelope that's been designated by bulk and scale. >> well, that's a no for me as maker of the motion. >> well, we don't have a second. >> well, there is a motion and a second but the motion is to initiate so the district can be taken up when it's calendared before the commission. >> however, (laughter). >> commissioner. >> it sounds like it's not

appropriate to have those in there anyway at this time so i'm not supportive of adding those amendments. we'll have groups even if people who have worked on this for looked at and i think the parking and the density have long been contrasted and that will be the subject of our hearing in the future but not appropriate at this time so my motion didn't include that amendment >> what's going on with this thing? for the commission could, you know, discuss this either today or add it to a future hearing but one of the things we could do and i think this is the benefit of not having a specific hearing do i date is take that up with the community and when

you do have the hearing we can make sure we report back to you and i can ceremonial comment to that in the intern. >> that sounds like reasonable to me that he commissioner. >> no. if there's nothing further shall i call the motion >> on the motion to approve the draft resolution inform schedule a public hearing after our october 17th meeting (calling names) so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 17 to zero. >> commissioner with our approve can we take one more item and take a break after

that. >> commissioners that will place you on item 9 amendments to the planning code clugdz arriving the restrictions on structures. board file, please note that on july 18, 2013, following public testimony board file the commission adopted a recommendation to continue those portions of the resolution actually september 13th. commissioner anton voted against it. supervisors avalos introduced future legislation including separating those portions into a stand alone file which is a draft ordinance with 2013 board

file 16783. commissioners alice you were absent and you have to say you reviewed the video to participate >> i did. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm here to reiterate the item before you today is an ordnance that was introduced by supervisor avalos on july 30th. this is related to a more complex legislation that addressed the criteria and controls associated with the loss of dwelling units and some code reorganization. in july the planning commission recommended to supervisor avalos that the non-conforming exponents be split off and addressed individually.

at that time the department had concerns about the extension of non-legal units would have negative impacts on the nature affordability of smaller units. supervisor avalos agreed and this legislation focuses on the expansion of non-conforming unit. before i get to the departments recommendations of approval i have my colleague to a explain this. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim supervisor from jonah losses office. as ms. hay word explains this is section 81 it deals with the non conforming units. more for the benefit for the public those are sprartd from nell units that are built with permits that are zoned for a

lesser amount of zoning pursuant are the staff talks about 3 units and one would not be permitted and this asked they be treated all the same and the possibility of chang them we've made one amendment it restricts the envelope as it currently it. we feel that would sdrurj alternatives that would decreases the fieblt like add a bedroom. at the july 17th meeting we perpetrate another amendment that we're still working with the city attorney on which would deal with concerns that there could be motivation for people

to alter the unit and we're working not to alter those dealing with a eviction and we're going to model that in other places on the planning he code such as a is recently passed condo ordinance and also the garage ordinance that dealt with parking garages and with those two amendments we feel this is an ordinance that will give the flexibility to property owners but preserve affordability's and the existing housing staff. with that i'll be happy to answer any questions >> commissioner planning staff.

just to summarize currently section 181-c prohibits the non conforming units to practically speaking the non units can't be altered. and section 1 city and county h prohibits the now a units in the public works dr district but they have to be consistent with the planning district. today's ordinance would first allow non-coming from units to be expand but not beyond the envelope as it you fisted in 2013 and the supervisor will propose a further amendment that would prohibit the expansion of units where there's been a no fault e visitation in the years

and finally it would allow non-conforming units to expand in a similar way in the public works dr striktd for the department remedies approval and we felt this will reduce the likelihood that those would be less affordable. we there feel there's a change that would make a naturally unit into a smaller and less affordable unit by setting a the building envelope as it was on january 1st, 2013, we first say that the non conforming units could