end of the year. we heard an ordinance by supervisor dufty for the path of gold. this is around market street. this was sent in review in november. at the hearing, there was no recommendation, and they forwarded to the board to get an action next week, but without recommendations. what happened is that supervisor dufty amended the legislation for the department's recommendation. these were put on the lamp post and any banners would have to be

certified appropriate. they agreed unanimously. that looks to be on track. at the land use committee, there was the sequa reform ordinance. for procedures and some general modifications as well. you heard this ordinance in june of this year. you heard the legislation in june and july. hspc agreed with this. this was the fifth hearing. leader rector of the planning department expressed concern for the exemption process. and we would like to bring the

changes back to the commission. the committee was supportive of this request. that put the legislation in a couple of pieces and they sent this forward. and this is for the overall procedures for eir. at the requested more time for the exemption. they heard the split portion, and on that, they ask to reconvene on january 4. we hope to bring this back before you for the full hearing. also, they heard the dpw -- amendment for wireless in the public right-of-way. you heard this october 7.

and they also recommended approval, sending this to the full board that were passing this on tuesday. there was also a grant request for the historic resources preservation prague -- project, and this will is for $83,000. -- and this was for $83,000. and there is the enforcement effort for the academy of art, with the same presentation that you heard with the informational items. and no action was taken on this item. next, you heard resolutions sponsored by a supervisor mirkarimi, and you have addressed these in the previous week. we questioned a continuance at

your request. they were going to consider a portion of this, with the proper usage in these districts. the recommendation was that they use this as a base, and the committee has some money items on the agenda that they did not take action on this portion. thank you for your work on this and this item will be continued. the last item before this -- you have heard this the previous week. you did not take action but the committee did take action, recommending approval, and they sent this before the full board. also, at the full board of supervisors, there were a number of items and the first of these was an ordnance sponsored by supervisor dufty. this would provide an exception

for qualified student housing. you heard this item in november and recommended several modifications. not inc. was a new definition for student housing. we recommend the supervisor dufty continue to work on this. the staff and supervisor dufty agreed that we did not have time to make certain of how this would be working. and as you heard last week, the department has taken this on proactively. we will be pursuing this in the upcoming year. the ordinance was passed at the full board, but without modification. there was also a full ordnance, and this would amend the requirement for child care feasibility studies.

and, this item was put before you in november. the ordinance would require a city agency or private developer to use city funds for a project to prepare a feasibility study on how to provide child care on site. he recommended several modifications, including that the requirement be used for city funding. the supervisor decided not to implement this modification. this ordinance was passed. also, before the full board, this was about one year in the making. this happened in los angeles,

this has been in the making for the whole year. this is through the process. and also before the board was sponsor by alioto-pier, this was for the van ness districts. amended at land use for notification for these projects. it passed the first meeting. i want to share a piece of legislation introduced by the mayor's office. it would amend the planning code for urban agricultural uses.

this would ease the permit burden for local produce. this'll be brought before you in the next few months for your consideration. commissioner antonini: thank you very much. he spoke about some issues that are under consideration. one question that have, and perhaps you could tell me about this. sequa rules may be accepted by the six supervisors, and overturning and other usage -- this is within the province of the city and county, and so i just wanted to find out if this is something of which we have control over, and the bar for

approval or acceptance in those matters. >> i will look into that and bring you more information. >> thank you. >> the preservation commission was meeting but the only items that were important of the presentation on the -- are the presentation on still lake park. we will hear about landmarking the golden gate park. a commissioner was concerned about the boathouse, wanting to separate the nomination. the staff convinced him they could do that in the ottal nomination -- total nomination. they will hear this. and as ms. rogers reported, they

did hear the path of gold lamp post. and i am not sure it was unanimous, but sentiments were expressed. they wanted to be able to specify a group on the lamp post. they did accept staff recomendations. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the director's report. >> good morning. peter cohen. two items. one was mentioned about the modifications to the housing ordinance of the city. in light of the earlier

conversation about a project on the agenda, we have some trends in the inclusionary policy. i am happy to hear the commission wants to discuss this. it is a troubling trend for us. i want to submit -- a resolution by the cac that was adopted last night regarding the inclusionary housing policy. and some concerns and what we want to see. the other item, and i do not recall if this was specific, but there was an ordinance coming through here for the working block of upper market. lighting the commission was very enthusiastic about this.

unfortunately, after this left the commission, there was a baton drop. the department transferred to the board. and you were missing some time in markers, and that the ordinance did not get to the land use committee before the recess. this will roll over into the new year, the new land use committee, this is a very new landscape. we see this cleaned up, and the commission has not been supporting these efforts. this will not be on the rails until late january and february. we will try to get this over the finish line. >> and is there any other public comment about the director's report? this is closed.

>> we will move to the general public comment category. this has a limit of 15 minutes. the public may speak to this commission about items in the subject matter. you can't speak for up to 3 minutes, but the entire category has a time limit of 50 minutes. and you may not addressed the commission on items that are calendar today. >> i am from the libertarian party of san francisco. i want to speak about the request to include communications from the public. and this is not just to say that the commissions -- there is a

letter received for these concessions. this does not include with the person said to the commission. unless you request that the communication be kept confidential, in which case it should be marked on the agenda that he received a communication to be kept confidential. the default position could be that the communication from the public is fully printed in the agenda. it is in the interest of democracy and accountability, for the members of the public to be able to see the way that other people are communicating, unless those people request that this be kept private. and i would ask that -- you

place these on a future agenda. and i would also include in a telephone communication, the formal and written letters. thank you. >> todd? >> good morning. todd mavis, project sponsor and owner at 35 lloyd street. ever since the meeting, the neighbors have come before you during public comment, on november 4, and again on november 18. unfortunately, they have made several misrepresentations and we think that this is appropriate to respond to.

the higher consultant said that we, as the project's sponsors, were being uncooperative, and unwilling to meet with them. this is simply not true. the project owners -- we contacted the neighbors every day, after the discretionary review hearing. we encourage with and to meet with us at the community board. and we were going to meet them -- and we suggested meeting with the planning department. and the planning department representative. and this was acceptable.

and after the discretionary review hearing, we spoke to the neighbors with another meeting scheduled for tomorrow. on november 18, joseph butler came before you. the revised architectural plans that we had after the discretionary review hearing, we attempted to respond to their concerns and your concerns. we made a substantial change. they said that we were now proposing a couple of variances. the suggestions are not true. and in the revised plan, we responded to the comments about the building being too tall. this has a high of 9 feet, we

lowered this by another 4 feet. we want to emphasize that in the revised program, we responded to their concerns, and in the next meeting, we will be meeting at 8:30 and we would like to invite all of you to be in attendance. hot it may be helpful to address your concerns as well as their concerns. thank you very much. >> other other items -- are there other items? if not, public comment is closed. >> i have a piece of good news that i would like to share with you. the challenge to the environmental market for

octavia to be invalid. >> this is not major. >> we will now start with a regular calendar. item number 10. an ordinance amending planning, section 409 to provide clarity and technical amendments. >> good morning. this has been reduced by mayor newsom, in follow-up to the article four provisions. to create a new article four. the changing of all of the fees in the planning code was a big project. and some things we've noticed,

we would like to correct. this would provide the corrections. the planning department recommends you recommend the ordinance. the majority of the changes will affect the readability. these are the requests of the controllers office. the carification -- clarification. to provide more certainty, that this will happen in a timely fashion. on the first page of the resolution, the last clause of the first page, discusses the exemption. the proposed ordinance is

exempt for statutory review. this is seciotion 15-273 of sequa. this is mike yawney from the mayor's office. >> good morning. i am pleased to be here. i wanted to refresh your memory on this position that the ordinance is addressing. in the reform package that was approved in july, this year, and it seems like last year. one of these components was the improved reporting requirements. consistent with the state

legislation, this should be provided to the board of supervisors pirie ahoy the funds will be expanded each year, and this will bring us into compliance with state law. this is for the land use committee of the board. we have the impact fee working, and what these amendments do, this clarifies, as part of the legislation, the adjustments and the impact fee. this will track the actual costs for building the infrastructure. they make sure that the annual recall inflation adjustments have been and are part of the report that is made to you.

the planning commission and the board of supervisors here about what these adjustments are, and we're reporting on how the money has been spent. if you have any specific questions, -- >> and is there any public comment on this item? this is closed. commissioner? >> and if the legislation is passed, we have realigned all the impact fees and we have left

this out of article 4 km we have the first instruction document. we have the-definition, and this is the first permit that is issued. and we have these permits. what this will likely be is the first of the foundations. and this is the back yard deck. >> the second question, toward the end, there are more substantial line-outs. some of the language is approved by the commission. this has been taken out. and do you lose any power over

these modifications? this is page 43. this is on line and 10. >> what happens is that we inadvertently left out a provision of the market. this is for the affordable housing special use district. we are putting this back in the code. and there are no substantive changes. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i moved to approve.

>> the motion is for approval. [reading roll] >> thank you. it passes unanimously. item 11 is case 2010.716 c for 1556 stockton street. >> a conditional use authorization request. this is for tony's a go go. it would also include pizza- making surervices. the food portion would allow take-out foot on site and food items. no alcohol would be offered. it would occupy 900 square

feet, with no modifications to the store front. we have been allowed to operate without a conditional use authorization, after it opened in good fatith with a tenant improvement permit. this happened without conditional use authorization. we worked with the staff to legitimize these operations. we have correspondence in opposition, and letters supporting the project are in the materials. the staff believes these requests are compatible and they are for the following reasons. it would add to diversity in the

area, restoring the store front. this promotes small business and it is compatible with the planning code. we are available for questions. >> project sponsor? >> good morning. happy holidays. we represent the owner of the business. the international school of pizza. the specialty food service, a retail specialty. food service. not a restuarant. the corporate name is international pizza -- part of the concept is to perpetuate

traditional italian pizza- making. the method is known and is of the school, scoia italiano. we are here to seek the revision of a stop-work order. a planner approved this as a grocery store, believing the large areas are for the sale of projects, canned and the like, that this would be like the previous use, a grocery store. and the planner may have thought the pizza-making was only going to be a very small and accessory piece of this space.