return today's meeting in his honor if you would. on a more positive note, i would like to let you know that the small business commission actually has given to staff a special honor, certificate of honor. dan snyder, who i do not think is present today. this past monday the commission gave them their certificate of honor acknowledging that they would like to acknowledge the contributions of that they have made to the small business community, both providing excellent service to small business owners, to navigate the complex zoning regulations and their timely response of research and guidance to the commission. we're very pleased with the staff working hard in that capacity. it was a nice honor for both of them.

finally, i just wanted to mention that i met with the new director of engineering at the va hospital. finally, after a while of trying to connect somehow connected with them. we had a very productive discussion about their plans come in and understood that they will be considering a lot of new options in the master plan. that was very good to hear. we agreed to have regular meetings in ongoing discussions on that, even though technically we did not have entitlement power over the be a. it is a federal agency. it is important for us to have that discussion. with that, that concludes my reports unless there are any

questions? >> review of past week event, the board of supervisors, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this week the board of supervisors did take action on a number of planned use items i would like to share with you. the first was an ordinance before the land use committee. this was called acts of god and calamity ordinance. this would revise our control for rebuilding non-conforming uses, and you did consider it on july 14 of this year. you recommended a couple of changes to the ordinance. first, you thought the ordinance as drafted provided too much flexibility, so you wanted to increase flexibility for those that did experience clarity -- calamity, but within certain bounds. you recommended extending the time line and recommended submitting a building permit would start the process moving. you also recommended adding a

retroactive date. supervisor cohen made those recommendations, and she also made another recommendation. they had a similar parallel language. with all of those changes, the land use committee recommended approval to the full board. at the full board they heard a few ordnances and a couple of appeals. the first ordinance was a standard for birds eight buildings. you also heard this on july 14 of this year. you adopted your own policy document, which it has been made available for the public. when the board heard it in committee, they heard a good deal of testimony and sap presentation.

they decided to amend it in a couple of ways. the amended it so it does apply to city-owned property. the planning code may or may not apply to properties depending on if it is explicit. in this case it will be explicit. the amended your controls on wind generation your the bird habitat areas. you wanted prohibition of certain types of wind generators, and they thought it was appropriate to allow all under current procedures. that will be the way the ordinance goes. and that ordinance was approved unanimously by the board on final reading. also before the board for final reading was the ordinance amending controls for the eastern neighborhoods plan. you heard that on june 23. this ordinance would amend the rezoning map, planning code and administrative code. generally the changes were to approve readability and good governance changes. this week the board did approve the ordinance also on the final

reading unanimously. there were a couple of appeals before the board. the first was the appeal of 3151 scott street. this was a project known as the king edward the second. it was appealed for the secret documents and a conditional use authorization. the project involves renovation and conversion of existing 29 units hotels into 24 units worth of group housing for transitional aged youth. there was a great deal with testimony of the board hearing. for ultimately the concerns raised failed to sway the board, who did affirm the final mitigated negative declaration by unanimous vote. even the district supervisor opposed to the project made careful remarks separating out issues and appeals from the appeal of the project entitlements it's self. when the project entitlements

and appeal is before them, as well as the special use district, he did say that is where the issues lay, and he voted against both of those elements. he was the sole vote in opposition to the entitlement or project. the project was approved without any further changes by a vote of 9-1 with one absent. the second appeal was a seat waequa appeal. the board overturned the gre we have issued for this address. the property was issued for a subdivision on a steeply-sloping lot. it would have created two new lots and no development proposed. it is just clearance for a subdivision. the board stated in the finding since it was reasonably foreseeable development would occur on the lots, the analysis

should have analyze potential impacts of an unknown development. the boards they did it could not be exempt. it could have the potential for causing significant and our mental impact on the development. those were the actions that have been done this week at the board. there were several items that were introduced. you have to bear with me for a moment. supervisor kim has a request that the general plan be amended, specifically the facilities element in conjunction with review of the san francisco moma expansion. that will be before you at a later date. chiu also introduced an ordinance amending the planning code to make it associated with reclassifications fours 676 howard st.. supervisor ohwn cohen

introduced an amendment for an associated person in the indian basin special use district. those items will be before you at a later date. david chiu introduced a hearing request on the status of the 8 washington project. supervisor mar introduced a hearing request on the progress of negotiations between the city of san francisco and the california pacific medical center project on cathedral hill. to prohibit the use of customer operated check out systems for alcohol abuse. that would be a planning code amendment, and we will bring that to you within the next 90 days. david chiu introduced another ordinance that would add men -- amend the administrative code. this would do a number of things.

it would generally require commercial landlords to make accommodations prior to leasing. specifically breeding ground floor entrances into compliance with laws, in forming small business about potential legal and fiscal responsibilities for failure to comply with those laws, and including any new amending these provision addressing any lease of landlord and small businesses to bring up the compliance. it would require the city, give priority to building permit applications to bring up the least spaces into compliance with the ada and allow small service restaurants and retail coffee stores to exclude the square footage and the floor area that is required to accommodate ada from required or maximal allowable square footage is. a lot of legislation on our

plate. we will bring more to you in the future. unless there are questions, that was my report. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: excellent as always. i think you said the supervisors had asked for a hearing. was that a public hearing they were having? >> it will likely be scuttled before the land use committee. at this point we do not know anything more than the sentence in the introduce request, which is a hearing on the status of 8 washington. commissioner antonini: that seems rather odd to me, because both of these items would not go to the board of supervisors if it were to fail, but i believe both of these projects are of a size that there would be other affirmations of entitlements

that would have to go before the land use first and then the full board. it seems as if this is a duplicitous process come in my opinion. this is where the public wants to hear these items. they can certainly be updated on them individually or through memos, but to have a public hearing it seems to be an additional process. that is just my opinion. maybe i will learn more. commissioner olague: thank you very much. >> are reports that the start preservation committee did the yesterday. i intended that meeting yesterday. -- i would reports that the start preservation committee did meet yesterday. they have further discussion on supervisor wiener's proposed amendments to those articles,

but continued action until their next meeting on what ever two weeks from yesterday was. they will continue that, and you are scheduled to have a discussion in hearing on article 10 and 11. they are meeting on the 27 of october. commissioners come a general public comment not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time the members of the public may address members of the commission, except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity will be according -- afforded when that item is reached in the committee. each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes. commissioner olague: is there any public comment? >> good afternoon. i come to you today to talk about parking and how the western some attacks forcummitee

developed a parking high your screen. the last place we wanted to put parking was on a transit land. we wanted to protect bike lanes next. i really think there is a hole in the existing policy where we have certain policy guidelines that are not being met by the parking policy. i would like for the commission to investigate to see how we can incorporate that city-wide to protect schools as well, because we want to be having up parking policy that encourages ability as well. in addition, i would like for you to revisit a 329 process because it is not quite work and we we thought it would, especially with the exception of is basically a whole to drive trucks through. this was a test. i am not sure i am seeing we're getting much value from it from staff and having neighbors needs balanced against the city and

developers. i will hope we can go ahead and look at that to see if there is more work we can do to see if we can look at the matters way beforehand to resolve any conflicts so that we are not stuck at the last minute try to fight. it is up to this commission to stand with neighbors to go ahead and mitigate the needs of developers, city, and neighbors. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you. >> my name is tim tenshara. i wanted to speak on several of the measures. i apologize, i do not know the procedure exactly. i know that today we have several not just speaking cantonese people. i was wondering if there could be an interpreter. commissioner olague: if an interpreter is requested, we always provide one. we always provide interpretation

when it is requested. so we will have one here. >> disk part cannot be interpreted for them? --this part cannot be interpreted for them? commissioner olague: when it comes to the item they are here to speak to, we provide the level of interpretation. >> 5 wanted to speak on a few of these under the consent calendar. should i do that now? commissioner olague: you asked that one of the items be called on the calendar. that is the page 3 item. that will be heard today, and you will be able to speak to that. >> what about on the regular calendar? commissioner olague: the regular calendar, you have to wait until the call of the item. any additional public comments? not on today's calendar?

only not on today's calendar. >> i am linda chapman from nob hill and i came in to comment on the status of the " kill commercial district. i have a call today from paul corboni who testified against 2315 polk and he commented, as others have done, that it is unfortunate that you are from maybe another district and you do not really have any grasp of what has happened to our district recently, or perhaps your thinking about the way things were 20 years ago is the way he put it, and that is not the way things are now. our district is now completely saturated with bars and liquor licenses and with licenses that are supposed to be for a restaurant, for about a fight

eating place like maze, which are being used for a night club. -- for a bonafide eating place like may's, which are being used for a nightclub. we now have two liquor stores and a bar within steps of high lo. he has gone into the liquor store occasionally at 10:00 and people are converging on the neighborhood asking where are the girls in where is the action? when i come into the neighborhood on the bus at 10:00, all these young people are arriving in groups, and some of them are teenagers come and no question about it. they are heading for may's because as a restaurant license. between that and blur, and the regular bars, we are completely

inundated with drunken youth. they come in on buses from out of town. they come in from other districts arriving at 10:00 in groups. as i am on the bus, they are passing around a can of something. they are already drunk and completely out of control. not once, but this is happening all the time. one of the apartment managers at the corner where we have three bars in that block -- i want to come back another time i guess to finish, but he called the entertainment commission director who paid out and said we will have to set up a task force this is so bad. rather than enforcing the laws we have appeared and i will be back to discuss this again, i guess, but we need to use the laws we have now rather than let this get out of control that

they have to set up a task force to study it. thank you. commissioner olague: think you. in the additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. -- thank you. >> we will call item 4 at this time. case 2011.0591q. this is 307 page street. take of thi>> the project is pro contain four story mixed use unit. this will contain a commercial condominium. the subdivision code requires

that the planning commission call a public hearing to review the application for any condo subdivision applications containing 526 residential units. at this time, the department is recommending you approve this subdivision application. the proposed project is consistent with the housing element of the general plan. the come on out -- the condominiums will preserve that and provide ownership opportunities to san francisco residents. it also meets the requirements for the condo conversion under the state map act, and also the san francisco subdivision code. thank you. i am available for any questions. commissioner olague: project sponsor? anyone care? here? no. if we have any questions, we will definitely call you. i believe you are the one that

asked this item be pulled from the calendar. >> thank you. as i said, i practiced at the san francisco -- i am sorry. my name tenzinsherp. i practiced at the san francisco [inaudible] for eight years, and i have a feeling this property may be connected somewhat. i actually also, in addition, was at the victorian that they use as a hospice, and i practiced there. i was a volunteer at a hospice, which is right down the street from this.

i am definitely against this. first of all you have six of dwelling units with people there now. i am currently homeless, and a senior. i get social security income, and yet it is almost impossible to get housing as a senior. i am concerned, not just that any seniors are there, but in general it perplexes me that the staff would automatically recommend converting to condominiums when people already have homes there. i would like to state against this. commissioner olague: any additional public comment on this item? >> yes, commissioners, to what the speaker -- mark solomon, north mission.

housing prices are flat, if not falling. the last thing we need to do is add more condos apply when there is not enough demand. we have a bunch of condos on the table. when you approve these coming your taking money from the equity of san francisco in to live here right now, transferring it to developers and giving it in part to people who did not live here now. that is not your job. thank you. commissioner olague: any additional public comment on this item? >> my name is ken pariage. it is worth noting that this building has six residential units in fully owner occupied. there are not any tenants in this building. as the previous speaker, there is a conversion for profit. that should be addressed for all the things -- for all buildings.

these folks did live here for i believe seven years to be able to do this. actually they were there for 10. they have followed all look the required procedures in order to win this. it do not think they should be singled out in any way. thank you. commissioner olague: is there additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. everyone gets three minutes. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i think there is confusion on the part of the public on the situation, but these were six owners that have owned this for a long amount of time and have to get into a lottery in tapped to eventually be selected to be able to convert. -- and have to get into a lottery to be selected to be able to convert. no one is being displaced. this is an opportunity for these

people to own their units individually, apart from owning them as a group of six people, which can be problematic when six people have to work as a group on all decisions so they will each own their units individually. i think what the code calls for, and correct me if i am wrong, but when we're dealing with a certain number off condominium units, if it is lower than six, the top amount is six, then it does come before the commission for approval, but it is more or less a routine thing. it is part of the code and has to come forward. >> that is correct. under the subdivision code, condo conversions of five or six units are required to come to this commission as a conditional use authorization. under five minutes does not require your authorization.

i believe six or more units are no longer allowed to be condo converted. commissioner antonini: that was my understanding. thank you. these people who have done this -- owner rights have to be protected, too. and these people have obviously gone through a lot to be able to own their own homes, and that is what this is allowing them to do. i am in favor of the measure. >> the six residential units that are owner occupied are disclosed in your case report, and those owners are listed on page 2 of the case report. commissioner olague: there is no association or affiliation with the events staff? >> no, there is not. at least not as far as that. commissioner borden: approval.

>> on the motion to approve condominium conversion -- [calling roll] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously pari. item 12 was continue to november 17. we are now on item 13, case number 2005.1912e, significant natural resources area management plan and in our mental impact report. please notice written comments will be accepted until the close of business on october 17, 2011. >> good afternoon, president and members of the commission. i am jessica lange of the planning department. this is a hearing to receive

public comment on the environmental impact report for case number 2,005.1912e, significant natural resources area management plan. the recreation and parks department develop the natural areas program to to -- to protect and maintain that natural areas maintained by the state. there are 32 designated areas. 31 in sentences go and one is located in pacifica. the management plan identifies management action within each of these natural areas and intended to guide habitat restoration from a trail and access improvement from other capital projects, and meet its it also addresses routine maintenance and the park restaurant -- park restoration project at the project level. activities are similar to the current scale and scope to the current program and we're not changing substantially with the implementation of the management plan.

project level details have been developed for the sharp park restoration project, enabling the plan to be addressed at the project level. the purpose of the restoration project is to enhance the habitat for the california red legged frog and san francisco carter snake. the main projects include dredging and recall entering of the wetland complex, creating an unplanned and what land project in and around the lagoon, and creating a habitat around the lagoon and horse stable pond. the project evaluated is the project proposed by recreation and parks. we are required to analyze alternatives to the project. these all turtles -- alternatives are not proposals for the management area. staff does not care to answer comments today. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. we will respond to all verbal