continue the hearing that is scheduled for march 10. i only made three copies of the letter to the clerk of the board as well as -- and we welcome any comments required to get this continuation. president olague: any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is the first i have heard of any request for a continuance. i was not even aware there was an appeal of the categorical exemption.

it seems to me that it is not a difficult issue. the first step has to come to you. certainly, the appeal at the board of supervisors, i don't see the complicated issue of the categorical exemption. i would urge the and not continue this item, it is a relatively modest project. that was about 16 or 18 months ago. we would urge you not to continue this. president olague: any additional

public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore: did he say hide street? okay, i heard him say pine. >> our typical advice has been that appeals to environmental reviews are not timely until there is action on the project. that is what we have always been told. this is the first i have heard of the issue, too. i am not aware of any confusion on this, but i will look into it more thoroughly. president olague: the city attorny is here. >> i don't have anything to add to this discussion at this point. this is also the first have

heard of this issue. and if necessary, give you advice prior to next week. president olague: the calendar is released tomorrow by noon. >> you are now entering the portion of your calendar where the public hearing has been closed. commissioner antonini: i will have to recuse myself as i did before. commissioner moore: we have teh he adoption of our hotel first. president olague: this is regular calendar, commissioner

moore. commissioner antonini: i have received more in dental fees than is allowable. >> on the motion to recuse the commissioner? [roll call vote] the commissioner has been reduced from this item. -- recused from this item. at which time, members of the public were allowed to testify. since the hearing has been closed, you may readdress them at this time. each member may address the public for up to 3 minutes. president olague: any public comment on this item?

great. >> a good afternoon, members of the commission. i represent the residents' association on a california street. and the building is due for demolition. it was reviewed at the last meeting here. we object to this hot number of bases. -- for a number oon a number of. has this building been tested for lead and asbestos before demolition? it can enter our homes and in danger our health.

this is a similar scenario, on a smaller scale, but the free- floating toxic debris and dust to be trapped in the vicinity. we also object on the basis of public new sense. -- nuisance. it will be deleterious to our quality of life. it will occur immediately outside of our bedroom windows. the windows are quite old and even when shot. -- old even when shut. we object on the basis of interference with the use of

our privacy. the proposed construction project interferes with the use of our property. it will be unfair to the quality of life. construction workers will be there all day long. it is intended to block the direct sunlight on the west side of our building. it will impact the atmosphere making our homes less livable. we also object to the loss of street parking. i don't know if they have received the petition signed by our association. president olague: if you leave it here, miss rogers will pass it. >> i only have the original copy, i can leave you with that.

thank you for hearing me. president olague: any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, i am here to repreent the -- represent the project sponsor. i want to thank commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya. president olague: if this is general public comment -- >> i can respond to -- president olague: this is the only time? go ahead. >> we want to thank them for their support. we were really impressed with the building design.

there is one note i would like to make about the active use. it has been replaced by bicycle parking. we will continue to work with staff on the mural. we held an informational neighborhood meeting. some of the neighbors attended a meeting. there was questions about construction. we will comply with all standards. we also propose having a meeting prior to the commencement to meet with the neighbors to redress some of their concerns. president olague: is there additional public comment hot items where public comment has been closed?

seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: the commission was supportive of the building except for those concerns. it is overpoweringly the building on seventeenth and california. commissioner sugaya and i volunteered. in giving some alternative directions to how mone might -- president olague: we have to call the item. we call the project on to the calendar and also commissioner fong would disclose he's heard the tapes. >> now we are finished with item f, we are now moving to item g.

the item at hand. 214 through 216 17th street. this is a request for a rear yard. commissioners, you should know that on january 27, following public testimony, we continue this matter. commissioner fong was absent. commissioner antonini was recused. they will consider the variances. >> i was able to review the meeting.

>> the case before you is a conditional use authorization on a lot greater than that in a zoning district. it is located on the corner of california street. the property currently contains two buildings with a commercial space and two residential units. the proposal will result in a two-story mixed use building. and a four-story unit. they are seeking a rear-yard

variance. the commission voted to continue to find the proposed designs. it was brought towards the seventeenth street facade. it will allow bigger when does an create proportion in relation to the building below. the architect revised the three- unit residential building so that the materials are reduced. have been changed to punched openings. and the active use on frontage was replaced on a space for art. it was also increased in size and bicycle parking was added.

the revised proposal is acceptable and recommend that they approve the project with the additional conditions be rendered in a more durable medium such as mosaic tile or stained-glass. and prior to issuance to insure that it complies with the requirement. since the last hearing, they received one letter which the gentleman spoke to earlier. that concludes my presentation. thank you. commissioner moore: i was just recapping the fact commissioner sugaya volunteered to be together with the architect. everybody feels good about the exchange. i am comfortable to see the seventeenth street residential building be more in line.

i am comfortable with the way it addresses the transition of the historical important facades to the new addition on top. i think the subtle interplay between old and new, of buildings are respectful and more background and allowed, attracting attention on their own. what i have expected has been met, and there is flexibility to respond as smoothly as they did. i like to talk about the department's recommendation and whether it needs to be limited to mosaic. i am prepared to approve the building and moved to approved.

commissioner miguel: i am much more pleased with the current iteration and i thank commissioners moore and sugaya for working on that. just one comment to set the public record straight, the resident is seventeenth ave. to the gentleman that spoke earlier, the items that he mentioned regarding hours of operation and deconstruction construction, malaise, they are handled and it is my experience as an observer over many years, between the requirements, those

items are extremely well handled in san francisco. you cannot expect to live in the middle of a bill the city and not have construction happen in your close proximity at some time. that is just the way a city develops. nothing is ever in place for the next 200 years, it does not happen that way. that aside, i think it is a nice project. as for one of the iterations i saw, specifically, the ballet school. that would be no difference that if they put something in their window. it should, at some future date, turn into a different type of business. even minerals can be replaced if necessary.

and when we originally heard the item as to the public's love of that ballet school, i understand it is somewhat iconic in the neighborhood. president olague: i want to thank them for working well with commissioners sugaya and moore. architects have a lot of the ownership of a project. i am really grateful that you can work so cooperatively with our commissioners. it is a project that everyone is pretty much happy with. thank you for working with us on that. commissioner moore mad the motion. >> on the motion to approve. [roll call vote]

>> i am acting as. i am going to take this matter under advisement. i would say that i am inclined to grant these variances, and as with any variants, it is not final until a letter has been issued with a 10 day appeal window. if anyone of like a copy of that letter, please give their name and contact information to make sure they get a copy of that. >> thank you. we'll be moving back to item number 2 that was on the consent

calendar and this is case 2011.0105 amending the planning code inclusionary -- that's not the one. case 2011.0021 is the large source hotel annual inventory, item five. >> good afternoon. there is a revised inventory that the commission secretary will be passing out to you. and this item in front of you is the annual large tourist hotel inventory that is required by the administrative code for this commission to adopt. just to refresh your memory t board of supervisors passed this large tourist hotel conversion in march of 2008 and what it essentially did was establish a one-time 500-room credit for

hotel units to be converted into residential units. at that time the former zoning administrator had established a queue which consisted of four hotels. that queue had not change and they had until november 1, 2010 to obtain the first entitlement document from the planning commission in order to continue. all of those requirements were established in the administrative code. the four items that were in the que queue, none of them received their entitlement documents prior to neighborhood first and there is currently no tourist conversion queue. the only way that new unit can be established is if there is an annual increase throughout the city of 100 units. there is 100 units and this commission can have a hearing an allot 100 units for conversion. in terms of the overall inventory of the hotel room, we found that it had not changed

since they adopted 2010 inventory. the reason you have a new inventory list is that the list that was originally submitted in your packets included an additional hotel that was removed from in 2009 and 2010. so i want to confirm that the total number of hotel rooms in the city currentry are 27,926 and we have not seen any increase or decrease and we are recommending you adopt the motion in front of you to verify the number for the 2010-2011 hotel inventory. i am here for questions. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment on this? . . . >> sue hester for hotel workers and we support the adoption of this motion. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i have a couple of questions.

and while this is not, of course, all that is before us is approval of the inventory, not the issue regarding the conversions. but it just seemed a little curious to me that there was this, if you will, grandfathered provision where you would have been able to have converted up to 550 large tourist hotel rooms and done so in a timely manner and now since that's expired it sounds like in order to have conversions as the current law is, you have to have the establishment and equal number of hotel rooms, if i am reading this correctly. >> the administrative code you are somewhat correct. the administrative code only allows for that one-time 550 allotment.

that has gone. and the way the administrative code reads is it that's on a 100 room basis and if we have 100 rooms put into the city that meet that deaf situation, you can have a hearing and an allot 100 rooms. if there is a desire to establish another large queue such as another 550-room conversion, that would have to

be legislated back into the administrative code. and currently that was the way it was set up. when the board passed the ordinance, they recognized there were projects in the pipeline that were going to convert and they allowed a two to three-year window for them to attempt and try to go through this process. as i outlined in the case report, they did not pursue it and two were unable to get the intieltment and they basically de-- to get the entitlement and they basically defaulted. commissioner antonini: i guess my question is that the feeling is 28,000 was number of hotel rooms we needed but we could live with 500 less and now since the time is expired and i guess we can't live with 500 less and it seems like if it was good

then, it should be good now and never should have been good. i am not quite sure and i guess it has to do with grandfathering and that was probably the idea why it was in there and it was felt we can't lose any large hotel room. >> honestly w the policy call done at the board of supervisors, they felt that was sufficient and that that is sufficient. we want to increase hotel rooms. commissioner antonini: right. we actually prefer to have more rather than less. i think i understand. it's just a little confusing. thank you. president olague: is there a motion? >> move to adopt. secretary: on the motion to adopt the large tourist hotel annual. [roll call vote] >> thank you, commissioners. that item has been approved. and now we will turn back to what appears to be the first item on the regular calendar, item 10, case 2011.0046t. this is the ordinance to amend the planning control for the n.c. 3 district between bush and mcalester street and it is board of supervisors file 11-0010. and commissioners, i am staffing this item and i'm anmarie rodgers from the planning commission and i will present this ordinance to you. and this ordinance was introduced by as a targeted piece of legislation which would require active ground floor commercial uses on fillmore street and between bush and mcal allister and i believe we will have a speaker shortly to describe the impetus for the particular ordinance. while we're waiting for him, i'm

describe the ordinance previously. and the ordinance would amend the active use section of the planning code which was many active uses and requires in certain areas of the city. if approved, this ordinance would acquire the uses on fillmore street between bush and mcallister. and this does exclude and therefore would prohibit other uses on this list. and including office uses, and that individual uses 25 feet into the building. if there were uses of larger than that, it need to be wrapped along the frontage so the uses were in front of it along the sidewalk. commissioners, in reviewing this particular ordinance, the department recommends approval with a small modification. and we would modify the active uses as defined and currently in the planning code to include a couple of other uses. the first we recommend should inexclusive self-service specialty food restaurants and that is a new restaurant definition that did not exist

when the active uses were originally defined and probably should have been included in this list when it came into existence. and similarly outdoor activity areas should be included in the list as they go a long way in creating active spaces along the sidewalk. and there we have the esteemed supervisor and his aid and we just described the ordinance and if you would like to take a moment to describe the purpose of the ordinance. president olague: and also want to acknowledge tom from the city and i know you have been worked on this extensively. okay. >> no special privilevileges to. >> hi. honorable commissioners, thank

you very much, and i'm representing district five and thank you very much to the planning department for our assistance in drafting this legislation. i'll give you the high-level reason why i put this in there and make personal motivation and the fillmore in the western area in japantown was under the rubric of the redevelopment agency for approximately 45 years. and the redevelopment tenure of the fillmore and the western edition terminated in january 2009. arguably, there were high points and in my opinion many low points of the experience of urban renewal in that particular area. and one of the them was because of the land use and zoning decisions that have been made along the fillmore corridor throughout the western addition were not consistent with the city's planning code and the desire of how the city's planning code and land use and zoning conditions had evolved over the decades. as a consequence like ine