strike access to -- >> absolutely. that 11x17 drawing will be required. >> thank you. >> thank you. president miguel: we have speaker cards for public comment. >> commissioners, good afternoon. you may hear in this hearing or a subsequent hearing that the notion that in some way the amendments being pr posed at the h.p.c. or amendments coming forward impact the cleanup work that your staff is doing. nothing could be further from the truth. please consider the fact that what is being presented today is purely cleanup language that's finally establishing what has been going on for the past year and a half.

and any substantive changes being suggested to article 10 and 11 should be considered separate from the cleanup language being proposed. it is very important to consider that and if not, you will have a lot of muddy works before you for a long period of time and thela thing you want to do is combine those thing. i have compared that to prop j and compared that to the charter and i feel that with the additional language that ms. sullivan has brought forward today that this is in compliance and this should be voted on. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> penelope clark. i am addressing basically the changes on the section 311.

quite frankly, it is very hard to find these changes. we received when we would call the planning department, they would say we can't print it out and didn't mention that the changes are only in section h at the very end, pages 449-451 of the entire document which would have been helpful. and of course, many people are out of town on vacations and certainly i was one of the emailers on the access to issue. and i have another question on this and that is in letter f. and crossed out is the name and telephone number of the project sponsor and the planning department assigned to review the application. i don't know if this is kept

elsewhere, but i know from my own experience in dealing with neighborhood peel that the first thing they do when they get the 311 notices which they don't understand terribly well is to call the planner who is assigned to the project and this notification is extremely important and i certainly think it should not be removed from this notification and that perhaps this whole 311 thing could be at least continued for more input to carefully read this and be able to understand it and then be able to comment on it. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with san francisco planning

association. and i have two comments that i would like to make about this legislation before you. the first is that we have had an opportunity to review the legislation and believe that it makes nonsubstantive changes to the planning code. it is really just cleanup legislation that needs to be done and we find it to be appropriate. so we feel that it's appropriate and we believe that the decision you are making today is really is this just a cleanup legislation and is it appropriate to move forward. we understand from staff presentation that there were a number of amendments that were put forward by the h.p.c. in the hearing yesterday. i would strongly urge you if you were going to consider any amendments to this legislation with wrar mrar regards to articles 10 and 1 that you do

not do it as part of this legislation. article 10 and 11 are extremely complicated and there are ramifications for a whole variety of things that this commission cares for deeply and any discussion of substantial amendments to article 10 and 11 should be done, i believe, in a joint hearing of the planning commission and the historic preservation commission so the issues can be flushed out with all the stake holders because it has major ramifications for the city as we are going through serving vast blocks of the city. i would urge you to not take on any major steps with the legislation. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this?

>> i do have a memorandum from the members of the committee dated april 3 and i don't know what is suggesting a number of amendments and i don't know which of the amendments were recommended by the h.p.c. yesterday but i do go through the amendments and many of them go well beyond prop j and are not necessary that article 10 and 11 be amended in ways that are suggested by the memorandum. i would urge you to be cautious about making those kinds of changes in this legislation and limit yourself to the cleanup amendment. for example, prop j is silent on the issue of h.u.d. demolition and contributory buildings would be handled and the amendment would make changes in that issue

and that is a broader issue that needs conversation and this is not the time to do it. prop j is silent on the issue of signs on landmark buildings. and again, this adjusted language in the document suggests changes by regular laytors and i would urge you to not go in that direction. language suggested on changes in how landmark is initiated. again, prop j was silent on that issue. there is a number of host of issues in the suggestions from the prop j committee that are substantive and are not mandated by prop j and i would urge you to not go in that direction in this legislation. and if the h.p.c. is making the suggestions which none of us have seen because they met only 24 hours ago and this commission would be cautious and make sure that those amendments that do go forward are strictly cleanup language or strictly follow the mandate of prop j and don't go

beyond that. and until a more substantive and thorough process can move forward. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to mention for the cleanup language in attachment ht issue here is there are some code changes or ordinance changes done after the july meetings and i am not sure that even though the zoning administrator and the director of planning has reviewed previous amendments if those were vetted but the public and al right now it is summer vacation and most of the association people are not here.

i am not sure how much of the public knew about this last portion where the changes were put into attachment h. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. i appreciate your presentation and i was not inclined to continue this. i am still not inclined to continue this. to me it's pure and simple clean cleanup. i appreciate the change and the elimination of the word access and that makes it clearer and easier to understand. this is one of the results of what happens when a municipality has the largest planning code in existence in the world. this is exactly the situation one finds themselves in constantly having to cleanup legislation and former legislation in code because they end up in the wrong sections and

don't refer to the right material and the numbering system is totally confusing. to me any attempt to simplify is gratifying. and i think it was totally correct in the presentation as to anything that came from the h.p.c. yesterday and anything else that may come forward, i personally wish to look at that as a totally separate item. i do not want us to be in the situation that you find in congress in washington let alone in sacramento of taking a simple piece of legislation and having everyone piggyback off of it. that is a bad way to do legislation. and this is simple cleanup and i

see no problem wit and i have read it and studied it and hope it goes through. >> commissioners, i want to clarify the h.p.c. discussion because i attended that meeting and was involved in the discussion. we went over for article 10, we didn't get to 11, but went over point by point the various changes and had the same concerns that the items that we not make those changes because this wasn't just cleanup legislation, but the historic preservation commission asked for another chance to continue that discussion and two over the items in specifics to be clear about what changes we were making so that the changes we were making that they were convinced were not substantive. it wasn't a question of insisting on substantive changes at the table yesterday but more

time to go over them. i wanted to clarify that. president miguel: i appreciate that. vice president olague: i want to thank ms. sullivan for her work on this. i believe we had since july 8 and i don't find that anything here is substantial as far as the cleanup. i think it's merely cleanup and changing some language and that sort of thing. i am reluctant at this point to accept any additional amendments that we haven't had to study for the same amount of time what is sitting before us which is approximately a month. and that wasn't part of the july

8 document. since then if we change the word an is no longer access to make sure they are able to get the plans and that was the big concern i was hearing from the public that they would not have access to the drawing. and urn with the public who had those concerns. i would like to say that where what we have here on 10 and 11, i don't believe what i have seen from the july 8 document that was published is substantial. i don't believe so really i am concerned of the amendments introduced yesterday to be above and beyond and the cleanup in

minor code damage. i am not prepared at this time without further studying some of the propose d changes to anythig i am looking at before me. what i would like to status, though, is article 10 and 11. there was a couple of years ago a piece of legislation introduced at the board and i don't know where we are with that at all and evidence several discussions with different members of all communities really, affordable housing, communities of color and even preservation community to try to see is there a way that we can get -- it seems that we're down to maybe a few people that are never going to agree on some pieces and it looks like the

vast or many of the people i spoke with at least seem to have this with almost 95% and the 5% is the stickler. there was a third version that a lot of members seem to have concerns about. >> thank you, commissioner. tara sullivan. the legislation introduced at the end of 2008, we turned that around and both commissions turned that around and turned it back in as april of 2009. it has been sitting at land use since then. aaron was at the h.p.c. and has contacted the director and myself and that is a legislation that is pretty much dead at this point including the third version that was offered by a different group. article 10 and 11 is a hard animal because there is some acknowledgment that it's so

controversial that a complete overhaul may never occur and some hesitation to move forward and some people fear that will be the only change that occur to 10 and 11 for the next several decades and some people want to add more. and the director and the department want to acknowledge h.p.c. into the planning code and it is time they are recognized in the code and the processes are put in the code. the charter trumps everything and where the charter is silent, we look to the planning code. where there are conflicts, we have tried to eliminate them or answer your processes. and to answer your question it seems to be for now and the near future the one chance to clean up 10 and 11 to conform. however, the director did send out a memo about six weeks ago to the commission and we are starting to have talks with the h.p.c. and there are really maybe a handful designation and major and minor alterations and

staff level approval and there are a handful issues that are contentious between different factions. once all that plays out we are willing to bring forward more amendments within however long it takes. and for now this seems to be at least right now the first and only bite of the apple that we're having with 10 and 11. vice president olague: if it is the case that there piece of legislation if the former president peskin acknowledged it is no longer in play, i don't know that for a fact and as far as i know it is still sitting at the board, but i am comfortable with his acknowledgment of that. and then i think that this is something i believe the planning commission should have some input on. and if those conversations started at the h.p.c. level

around the more controversial items that were outstanding around demolition and when they do, they should simultaneously hear and as commissioner or president miguel mentioned, i think that ultimately what needs to happen is we need all meet jointly to go and have some public meetings where we can get into some because there might be some areas, maybe more areas of agreement than we suspect and areas we're never going to have agreement on but to have maybe be able to flesh this out before the board takes action on changing these codes. >> if i can clarify, we have not had conversations with the h.p.c. about these issues yet. the memo i sent to both commissions suggested that the strategy should be to present you with policies that the commissions could adopt as a kind of first step rather than full blown legislation.

and then that was the proposal for later in this year. but to be clear, wills not specific substantive conversations yet about these issues. and i think everyone agrees with what you said is there is probably a handful of issues that are the kind of collectively the crux of the disagreement. those discussions have not started yet. >> and i think that does need to happen sooner than later. and it that needs to be as much as possible an engaged dialogue with stakeholders and definitely p.c. and h.p.c. and to the extent that learn to synchronize our work, that is the ultimate goal to work not in what is happening is there is a weird power struggle or power play and that is not what i'm interested in. i'm interested in making this

work for the city and all the city's priorities and to balance those needs and not one issue always trumping the other or getting into these ridiculous moments. there are ways to work in a very compatible way. i think they would require joint hearings and building up that trust and relationship between the two commissions and having all members of the public also join in the same kind of conversation rather than having a lot of separate conversations where things aren't coming together. that being said, i'm going to go ahead and move we adopt what's in front of us. then to make sure the language on 311 is changed so that the

word access and i think that many of the amendments i see here not anything in the past 24 hours and everything that is in front of us since july 11 and including 311 noting language and i am ready to make a motion to move forward with this. >> second. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. >> i am not ready to move forward and there are a lot of questions i need answers to and can take the next hour to go through them i assume. >> i'm here. >> thank you. page 14, line 10, the zoning administrator and all that has been struck. could i have an explanation of that please? >> that was a request by the former zoning administrator that

deals with section, excuse me, with section 185, continuance of nonconforming provisions and this is a weird section. when the planning code was updated several decades ago and when it is continuously updated, any use that is basically not permitted in the new zoning and becomes a nonconforming use and there was an intent decades ago to phase out and require nonconforming uses to shut down. and part of that was to mandate that the zoning administrator has to give notes and dates of expiration of when the businesses needed to shut. he has to do it every four years. we have not been doing this and

the city policy has changed to allow them to continue and he ask we have this provision struck from the planning code. commissioner sugaya: this seems to me to be a planning issue since it is a recommendation from the zoning administrator that was just presented to us as a policy matter and not just cleanup. the language that's been used to present all of these amendments and changes within 470 pages of code has been couched in terms of cleanup as everybody has said. and has been described as a way to address clerical errors and things that didn't get published right in the code, etc., but here is an example to me, i think, where the commission should discuss whether or not this particular notification process is still proper or not proper.

page 23. we have b, action upon such uses and the lines that are struck out say shall be by the planning commission. is that something that we don't have jurisdiction over anymore? or is it something that should also be discussed like the last item? >> this actually is in conjunction, these changes are in conjunction with the legislation that was introduced this week regarding food carts and temporary use. we had a working group internally in the department to look at temporary uses with the former zoning administrator to the current acting zoning administrator and several other planners. and we wanted to update this

section. so temporary uses can be authorized, may be authorized by the zoning administrator as currently it is able to do. we did strike out the portion about the planning commission. i believe more legislation will be coming in front of you within the next 90 days that will take care of that and put it back in front of the appropriate section. it is not removing any power of the planning commission. >> thank you. i would soon leave it in if it is coming back with more corrective legislation again. and i am pointing out where there are language changes that don't appear to be necessarily

cleanup legislation and the same thing is true in section 209.3. and section 303 and 309.1 and 309.15, 309.12, 703.2a. and other play in the code. and i think the planning commission should take into account these are not just changes that are being proposed that are merely cleanup but have substantive policy issues and apparently no hurry here and i don't see why there can't be

discussion on items that commissioners like myself prinking up in the interim period. and unless we're not under any 30-day deadline with the board of supervisors are we at this point? as as that is my reason for not supporting the present motion. >> and to hold this over from the presentation from ms. sullivan, i agree with the maker of the motion and i don't believe there's any changing of the lawer or any significant changes that are not deletions that are inappropriate or repositioning of items in the document. but the other thing that's also important, my understanding is, if there is the desire in the future for either the board of

supervisors, planning commission, or where appropriate historical preservation to make substantive changes, that could be done or probably should be done. and so i'm in flavor of moving it forward at this time. >> commissioner olague. vice president olague: i want to encourage that, again, i think that i have said this loud enough, but we do need to have joint hearings with h.p.c. to talk about 10 and 11. we really, really do. and i think that is where this is going to have substantial conversations that will take place. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: it is interesting to me when i haven't heard any controversial issues come before us that involve h.p.c. decisions and ice versa. vice president olague: i think we're working very well so far together and it's been great really having this issue where it is. it's just article 10 and 11, i don't know, maybe there won't be any controversy and we'll have 100% agreement and that would be

a beautiful first in san francisco land use politics. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i think commissioner sugaya did point out a couple of things that were interesting but i think that what the cleanup and part of the discrepancy is is there is actual practice in things we're doing in the code that we nevada do and are there. we could argue perhaps we should actually do them, but i guess it makes more sense to have the code clear on things we actually do and make sure that everything is in clean with all the different plans that we have out there as opposed to waxing that we keep things and provisions in the code for the sake of the fact they are already there knowing that there's not intent to do those thing. and that makes a lot of sense and some of the things that commissioner sugaya pointed out were things that were not in the existing code and t