specific language that would allow it to come back without prejudice if a specific tenant is identified. on that motion, please vote. >> that motion passes on a 5-2 vote with commissioners antonini and borden voting against. when will this come back, commissioners? >> can we do it next week? >> next week would be great for the intent to deny. it won't take that long. we'll put it on the top of the calendar. great. >> i can have that motion to the commissioners next week. >> thank you. >> commissioners, just to state for the public the motion will

not be in your packet. so it won't be linked to the calendar, the final motion won't be linked to the calendar. we can make it available to the public as soon as it's available. justi just to let you know. so this is coming back next week. thank you, commissioners. president miguel: before we proceed to the next item on the agenda, i know there are a number of people in the audience that are here regarding the booker t. washington community project. it may very well be an hour before we get to that just so they know. >> thank you.

commissioners, we now are on item number 7. case 2010.0080t and the planning code to various sections of the planning code amendments and to various sections of articles 7, 10, and 11. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tara sullivan from the planning department. the item before you is a comprehensive code cleanup and passed at the july 8 hearing by this commissioner. it is a large document that is in front of you. it is amending mainly clerical errors occurring in the code for the past several years and also has a few additional cleanups and particularly to articles 7, 10, and 11. the historic preservation commission heard this yesterday and obviously under the charter if any ordinance pertains to preservation issues, they have the right to review and recommend to the board of

supervisors. at that hearing the h.p.c. took extensive and went through page by page and went through articles 10 and the amendment. we did not get to article 11 and we have continued that to the next hearing which is in two weeks. based on that, the department is going to ask the commission that the item be continued until the first or second hearing after the summer break. but i am here and would like to go through if you are amenable some of the sections we are proposing amendments to, not 10 and 11 per se but some of the things in the attachment. if you would like me to do that, we can walk through that. >> and i am not at the moment inclined to continue this item, so if you would continue. >> i want to highlight several attachments from your pacts starting with attachment c. actually, i want to highlight

attachment b which you have had since july and i can answer specific questions. i am not going to go through each one of them. this is the spread sheet that itemizes the clerical errors in the larger document. >> attachments c-h have proposed amendments. attachment c deals with formula retail uses in section 303 and as you know and was discussed earlier today, formula retail uses came into effect around the commercial district and north beach and hayes valley and with the conditional use in the past 10 years and there was a voter reven dumb and authorizations -- and referendums and they have

incorporated formula retail concerns rc3 and rc 4 and articles eight in the eastern neighborhood as well as in soma and chinatown has its own prohibitions and c.u. arguments and pointed to article 7 and the department feels that is the inappropriate place and there is a section in the the conditional use section of the code that we are proposing to consolidate and there is no change to the definitions, to change to requirement. it is literally expanding on the formula retail definition in this section and clearly lays out what sections require c.u. and what sections should not allow formula retail and everything else. that is the first major change in terms of the planning code. again, it is not a substantive change but putting everything into one location.

attachment d deals with 309 of the planning code. i was asked by several staff people to look at this code. it was put in 1985 when the downtown element was passed and mainly deals with permit review and the c3 downtown zoning district. you should be familiar with the process, but i was asked to look at this code section because it is very confusing to read and hard to understand what the process is and what the requirements are. i worked with several people in the department, mainly the northeast quadrant who deals with this and the zoning administrator with the past and current acting as well as the director of neighborhood planning and we are proposing amendments one of which i would like to highlight because it has come up as an issue for some people of the community that

there is a requirement that requires when they receive the application for 309 permit or review that we have to notice that application and if someone filed a building permit, we would have to notice that the building permit has been filed with the department and is requesting a 309 review. the department has not been doing this for several years and most likely that the notice to approve application or more often than not it comes to the planning commission and we have hearing notification requirements. everyone felt that was appropriately handle on the back end and some believe it should occur again at the front of the application and this is with the

commission's call and the department would like to remove that from the planning code. everything else in the 309 is basically cleanup in terms of making sure it's clear with the process. i'm not going to go through each section unless you have specific questions. attachment e is highlighting the medical cannabis definition which has had a long, complicated amendment history since it was put into the planning code in 2005 and there were existing deadlines they had to follow by and kept being extended and the dates were coming and going in the planning code. that definition is probably one of the more difficult planning conditions to understand.

we are not changing any of the requirements. but we are making it very easy, hopefully easier to read that you have to be within 1,000 feet of a school, 1,000 feet of community facilities and recreation centers. so we're streamlining that throughout the code and making a nice, clean definition. obviously there are extensive amendments to 10 and 11 that we are proposing. in addition to what we have proposed in the general cleanup and i would like to say that -- i would like to say that -- do you want me to wait? article 10 and 11 are outdated. prop j was passed a year and a half ago and the historic preservation commission has been a seated commission for a while and there has been attempts to overhaul and rewrite articles 10 and 11. we have requests from this commission as well as the h.p.c. to at least clean up the planning code to put in historic preservation commission into articles 10 and 11 and remove the commission where the powers have been removed and basically

make it conform to article 10 and 11 was a starting point and we have received self-additional recommendations from the public and many of which we have . we are as a department unwilling to amend additional or accept additional modifications. we have been working with the h.p.c. and yesterday accepted many more modifications and we will go through article 11 as well and there will be additional modifications for 10 and 11. i am not sure how to approach 10 and 11 with this commission. i just either do a summary memo or go through it entirely at your call. alatchment h as several smaller

amendments that have come up since they initiated the code cleanup in july. one of them is a simple amendment to section 134. at some point and the report mentions that what was happening with the code and why this is a large cleanup is we were losing track in the city attorney's office of amendments and where they were in the timeline. eastern neighborhood was drafted years before it went into effect and other larger piece of legislation went into the code and then eastern neighborhoods accidentally erased a bunch of stuff out of the code. that kept happening and has been happening for many years. one of the things that was erased inadvertently in section 134 market and octavia a couple of parcels that needed to be put back into the code in terms of rear yard requirements. so we are asking that to occur. and section 201 and we want to

make a few minor modifications to the tables in terms of moving thingses around and putting headers in. section 309 a request to have a good catch to someone in the public that there is an exception that is no longer applicable and is moot and has been removed through eastern neighborhoods. so we're striking that. the other one, the last one which i know has been something you have received several emails on is the section 311 modifications that we have received or asked to make at this point. obviously this is a long-term process to amend the d.r. process and we are not trying to amend the d.r. process. there is no intent to amend any of the d.r. process. what we were asked to do by the d.r. team and the department was to streamline and cleanup this part that deals with the notification package. and what specifically has to go in the 311 package that gets mailed out for 30 day. it is not meant to remove any of

the requirements both written and planneded note. i have realized there is a word that is somewhat ambiguous and would ask the commission strike that. for example, the notification package for a project under 311 shall include a written notice and reduced size drawings of the project. that is very vague and makes it sound like the department will not provide drawings. access is a bad word and will say shall include written notice and drawings. we are acknowledging that was a poor choice of words there and further down in this code section. i do want to highlight that this change to section 311 is, if anything, making the notification package stronger. it is requiring more drawings and more specificity to the

drawings and the written notification. and so i just wanted to put that out there. i know this one has been a topic of much controversy, and again, it is not the department's intention to circumvent the d.r. process or any notification process. that is basically it for section 311 and that will basically conclude my presentation unless you have questions. >> can i just have a quick quick question on that thing. >> under e are you going to 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, co