notice the premeditation on the part of the officer and the allies about the injury. the officer was reinstated following the incident, and was promoted. and now, the locations of the injuries. we know the implications of head trauma and ask about what happened to the victim. did this result in lasting injuries that led to an early death? we cannot know the answers to this question because of a state law that is 34 years old, the bill of rights act that was aggressively pushed through by some of the most powerful lobbying groups. law-enforcement lobbyists. the only reason the public knows about this is because it made it into the chronicle. in 30 other states, the taxpayer is given partial access to

criminal police misconduct. california taxpayers are restricted by that. across the country, concerns have grown among liberals and conservatives over the historical broad authority. >> would you like to give your name? >> i would not because i have been harassed by this officer. i'm sorry i could not talk faster. i prepared some remarks >> is there any other public comment? public comment is closed. should we continue this to the call of the chair? >> first of all, i want to thank

everyone who was here as part of this presentation. we have had some decent progress in recent months. i would like to thank you for your leadership, and i was happy to hear from the police department that we believe that your portion will be connected by the fall, and i appreciate there is a plan to move things forward. i agree with supervisor campeau'os about the department project plan. i was curious as to why we did not receive this today, but i would ask for us to get this as soon as possible based on where things are. i know that we are part of a long line of supervisors that have been asking questions about this for years. all of you are in the audience

are responsible for implementing this -- and i would ask you about this and i have had conversations with most of the department heads that this is a priority. this is at the end of the line of elected officials and city staffers working on this. i am very concerned about this project. it has been seven months since we knew the leadership of this project would go over to the administrator's office. the conclusion of this hearing is that after a massive budgetary overruns, we do not have any answers on when this project will be completed and what the budget will be.

from my perspective, we all share the desire to make certain that this is finished as quickly as possible, and that the public safety benefits are soon realized. so whenever i can do, my colleagues were committed to free up the resources and the staff to make certain that this is done as quickly as possible. we will continue this item at the call of the chair for a status update in a few months and we will work with the city administrator's office >> we will have a hearing on realignment, says -- we will try to coordinate all of the streams of this project, and we will see if we are on track or not.

and thank you, president chiu. and thank you for your ongoing commitment. we look forward to the next report. we will work this out with president chiu. >> are there other items? >> i want to thank sfgtv for their excellence. the meeting is now adjourned.

>> this is the regular hearing for thursday, july 28, 2011. the commission does not tolerate any outbursts of any kind. if you have any mobile devices, please turn them off. when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone, and do state your name for the record. we like to take a roll. president olague vice president miguel president. cahow commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya is expected to be late. commissioner bordan and fong are expected to be absent. item one, amendments, rules and regulations. continuance to august 4, 2011. item two, 2011. 0532t, uses, , building features, parking, and complaints unspecified used district.

it is proposed for a continuance to september 8, 2011. item 3, 2011.0533z for a zoning map amendments, washington- broadway special use district 1. water for a special use district. but a three. special districts for sign elimination. special districts for cnn streets. continuance for september 8, 2011. item four, 2011.0051c, request for a conditional use authorization. proposed for a continuance to october 13, 2011. further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, we are receiving requests for continuances on item 11, a case 2011.0656tmz, and amendments to the planning codes. adding a section 608.16, and amending the special district of the zoning map designed --

assigning the special sign district, request for a continuance to august 11. item 13, case 2011.0155c, 5411 gary boulevard, use authorization, requested for a continuance to october 27. >> which items? >> item 13. item 16, case 2011.0294c is proposed for continuance to october 6. in both instances, the sponsor has no objection. and the final staff request of continuance or items 18a and b. request for a conditional use authorization and variants. that is all i have under items proposed for -- >> is there a date? what's october 6 for items 18a

and b. president olague let's open it up for comment on items proposed for a continuance. seeing none, this item is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yes, i have a question on item 11. its continuance is being asked by the sponsor. is that on the assigned district? >> that is my understanding. >> that is correct. planning department staff. we checked with supervisor farrell and the project sponsor, the party in interest. our work is still under analysis. i would like to request a continuance to the august date. " but 12 is still open for us? >> that is correct. commissioner antonini: the other comment was on items 18a and b.

i guess there was a paperwork problem on that. >> not entirely, commissioners. there was some additional design work that needed to be completed that was expected to be done that was not. >commissioner antonini: so we made requirements. it was not satisfied. with our calendars as busy as they are, it is disappointing when we have a lot of continuances. it just blows up future calendars. ok. president olague: if anyone is here for the 199 leland avenue item, we're moving back to october 6. if you could translate, that would be great. >> [inaudible] president olague: you can come to the microphone if you like, that with your voice lakari. -- your voice will carry. >> ok. [speaking foreign language]

thank you. president olague culbe: it agai, if you're here for the leland avenue item, that is being continued to october 6. commissioner antonini: i move to continue items one, two, three, four to the date specified. additionally, continue item 11 to august 11. item 13 to october 27. and item 16 to october 6. item 18 to october 6. >> second. >> on that motion to continue as proposed. commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner miguel.

and president olague. some moved to that motion passes unanimously. and that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar are considered to be written by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. the ordinance of the discussion of these items and was a member of the commission, the public, or steps requested. then it shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. there's only one item under the consent calendar. item five, case number 2011.0226c, 1336 ninth avenue, a conditional use authorization. >president olague: is there any public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore: move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. vice president miguel.

president olague. some moved to the passes unanimously. places this under the commissioner's questions about matters. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. i would like to think some excellent staff members for their excellent work. first, johnny, for the update on the downtown plan, which i think was extremely well-done. some of that has been mentioned in the press, a summary of the findings that were in that report, and i think that the emphasis on the fact that our downtown area is one of the finest in the country as far as being dense, walkable, and a well-served by transit is a very important. i think the only thing i would say, it is not negative, but just not to judge our conclusions for the future from what has happened in the last 20 to 30 years. the fact that there are fewer

professional -- or at least the same number of professional managerial type positions and corporate jobs in the downtown area, surly that part north of market does not necessarily mean that is going to happen in the future. because this is such a great area, we're seeing more and more of the employees of bay area businesses living in san francisco, rather, in suburban areas. and i think that there is becoming an awareness among the leaders of the many of the companies, some of which of their presence of saddam sentences go, that makes perfect sense for executive functions, government relations, and probably some of the work force to be in san francisco. i think we have the perfect opportunity to work on that to the development plan in transbay. i think that the future is bright in that regard. and i think there is, hopefully, going to be a resurgence of the percentage of the work force that does business in san

francisco. at one time, it was as high as 30%. i think it is down to 16%. i think with what we have, the wonderful area we have for businesses there that is already being built out, you know, it is appropriate that we be 25% to 30% of the work force in the bay area. the only downside on transit in that regard is, and we're served by barred from many directions and from caltrain, and unfortunately, because marin and never became part of the bart system, it does not go out to in northwestern san francisco in marin, which is an area that has to be analyzed for the future. finally, i guess there was the question about, you know, the metropolitan area and what if it includes. there are mixed opinions as to whether san francisco bay area includes the south bay also. the census bureau and others consider them two different

metropolitan areas. so that does not really make too much difference, but it is interesting to look at it, and i think we do have to consider it one region, but they certainly are distinct areas. secondly, i want to thank elizabeth for a very excellent report, answering questions i raised about the van ness special use district and hospital charity care information. as our discussion continues discussion continuescal pacific and on housing issues, it is important to have the facts first and make decisions second. she has provided us and the commission was some really interesting and important answers to with the van ness plan is, with a special use district is, and a history of all the different entitlements and developments that occurred and the relationship to the housing requirement. certainly, it is pointed out that there was one instance where hotel was demolished and was replaced by housing.

there have been no instances where anything has been demolished and replaced by large institutional use. i think it is quite clear the plan was crafted to make sure that there is a good land between housing and commercial, especially private, but i do not think it speaks to institutional and public serving uses, you know, because they should be distinct from the requirement in my opinion. that is something that is under discussion. it is very interesting. finally, she did a really good job of pointing at the level of charitable contribution for the cal pacific system, relative to about 12 other hospitals in the bay area. i think it is important that everybody read this kind of information and understand, you know, where they are relative to the others, which is actually pretty much on par with most of the. some are higher in charity care, and others are lower in charity care.

so it is important to have the facts before we make our decision. i want to thank her for a very excellent report, and i hope it is available to the public. i am sure it is. commissioner miguel: yes, i have met with people regarding the eureka street project and also the veterans affairs medical center in out on clement street. i would like to commend the department again, the better streets plan, which continues to gain recognition. it was just awarded the california apa 2011 best practices awards, and it will be presented during the california awards ceremony in santa barbara this september. with that, perhaps we will go national with it. as commissioner antonini mentioned, the information on the downtown plans, 25 years of

work, was excellent. john keane did a very good article on it. i did appreciate the information on the van ness plan, although different commissioners will interpret things differently. president olague: and i guess, usually as a little small gesture, will sometimes close the meeting in memory of someone who greatly contributed to the city. we're going to be closing the meeting today in memory of the executive director of the eviction defense network, miguel. it is quite a loss. he was a giant as far as advocating on behalf of low- income tenants and renters here

in san francisco. so if we can close in his memory, that would be appreciated. also in solidarity with the people of norway who experienced a rough last friday. even though we met the day after that, it is something that i think we should also be mindful of, that huge loss. >> commissioners, the places as under the director's report. item 7, directors announcements. >> excuse my tardiness, i was at the board of supervisors on another matter. i wanted to let you know that the better streets plan has received its third award, an award from the american planning association of the southern california area. that will be given to the department in santa barbara later this year. that is a project that is getting much-deserved recognition.

i am very pleased for all the staff involved in that. from all the city departments that worked so hard on the project. and i think it will close their, unless there are any questions today. thank you. >> item eight, review of past week's events of the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon. i am from the planning department staff to present this week's activities at the board of supervisors as it pertains to planning and land use. with the exception of the committee meeting this morning, it was the government audit and oversight committee regarding their department and commission's response to the park merced civil grand jury inquiry. i have not heard what happened on that yet. this we get the land use committee hearing, they considered a new ordinance, and inclusion area alternative for earthy -- if that would provide a new land dedication

alternative in this area in lieu of existing affordable housing fees. it would create some requirements related to that alternative. currently, this alternative only exist in the eastern neighborhoods. on june 23, you consider the ordinance and recommended several modifications that originated with a working group put together to consider the ordinance. supervisor wiener inc. these suggestions, and this week the committee some modified at the ordinance and a continued it for a week. two of the items that were on the land use the agenda for this week were sent out for a vote for the full board on the following days. so there were also considered by the full board on tuesday be the first of those this a live performance permit. you heard this item on july 7. this ordinance would create a limited live performance permit for cites his primary function is something other than entertainment. your requested that the ordinance be amended to extend

this opportunity to the soma, west portal, and pacific avenue district. at last week's hearing, supervisor mirkarimi indicated he would incorporate all of your modifications except for one. on the request of supervisor kim, he amended the ordinance that it allows entertainment in all these additional and districts, including soma, except for the ones which are also in the western selma citizens planning process. this week about the land use hearing the full board, there was interest in expanding the ordinance of might also permit dj's. in the end, the full board continued it without a vote to august 2. so they will pick it up again next week. they also considered the inner/outer clement and geary neighborhood permit commercial controls but your emerges from supervisor mar on july 14 to your credit approval with modifications. supervisor mar also amended the ordinance to incorporate all

your modifications but-41. first, your recommended that we should be able to permit additional restaurants in the inner claimant. one at the right. and i got the inner and outer clement districts. there would be committed -- permitted. the supervisor, did it this request, as he felt it was still a relaxation of the restaurant controls, and that is what he was seeking to you recommended to remove the prohibition on formula retell pet supply stores. although supervisor mar did not remove this, there is discussion about this control at the land use committee and full board. after discussion, the board approved the ordinance on the first reading. the budget was unanimously passed this week on final reading, and the mayor joined the board for assigning it into law. we are excited about that. and there were a couple of items that we discussed before, so i will not go over the mighty

delaware, but i will let you know that they're finally approved on second reading. supervisor campos'legislation concerning vintage size and our own general plan amendment making minor tweaks to the community's 50 element. two new items were introduced this week. they're both hearing requests. the first is a hearing request by supervisor wiener and supervisor carmen chu. this hearing would include the mayor's office of housing, as well as the office of economic and workforce development. the planning department and of the controller. the board would like to discuss the city's plan for significantly increasing the production of moderate and middle-income housing. we would like to review the status of the inclusion area housing program and consider how this will address a needed increase and moderate income housing, as well as the connection between the production of this level of housing and the city's ability to retain, a track, and increase private sector and non-private jobs.

so there's a lot on tap for that hearing. the second hearing request was introduced by supervisor avalos. this concerns the conversions of housing and rental housing to vacation rentals. the board request presentations from the planning department as well as dbi, rent board, the treasurer, on the magnitude of the problem of these conversions and potential solutions to stem such conversions. that concludes the report, unless you have additional questions. commissioner antonini: excellent report, as always. supervisor mar's legislation -- so the version that he has forwarded, which does not include our recommendation on the formula retell pat, that is the one that was voted on by the board of supervisors, and it was passed. what was the vote on that? >> you know, i did not record -- i am sorry i did not bring with

me the vote on that. there were three or four voting against it. >> ok. then it would have to be second reading and it could be subject to veto it the mayor was so inclined. >> correct. commissioner antonini: thank you commissioner moo. commissioner moore: can we have more background to the legislation which addresses of vacation homes? does that also include the purchase of homes as a second home in the city, which many people do? there's two ways of doing it. one is to convert a home, and existing home. another one is to buy one for the purpose of using it as a vacation home. and the two things raise a very important questions. >> this item is actually not an ordinance that would change any law. it is just a hearing request for supervisor avalos would like to discuss the issues.

they specifically said vacation rentals in the housing rentals, maybe in response to recent article in the bay citizen that came out this week. but we can certainly consider the issue and discuss that with the supervisor as well. commissioner moore: i appreciate that. commissioner antonini: i would like to get an update on the suggested dialogue by supervisors winner and chu in regards to moderate income housing in connection with jobs. we can get a report on how that goes forward, and anything that might take the form of any legislative changes would come before us. >> absolutely. we will definitely let you know how those hearings progress. thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night. they heard one item, which i think would be of interest to the commission. that is the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness

lists. this is the first one from the historic preservation commission. they initially heard it in march and requested the project sponsor continue discussing alternatives with the department. they met with the project sponsor. they came up with an alternate solution and give that to the project sponsor. they rejected it outright. they said they would not make any changes to their proposal. they said that throughout the hearing last night. the board of appeals upheld their decision with they 3-2 vote. so that project has been essentially terminated, although they can come back with an alternate design in the future. the board of appeals will not meet next week, but there will meet in two weeks to take an item that was recently before you, 524 harold street, about an office location. an appeal was filed. it is scheduled for hearing on the 10th, but they did not show