approval to the full board. the committee also heard an ordinance introduced by a mayor lee that would introduce the city process for white knight -- lightning's sidewalks. and-- widening sidewalks. the current process is lengthy and involves review by several city agencies, and even action by the board of supervisors. and now that the city has adopted guidance on how to widen sidewalks, it seems appropriate to make it easier to do so. this ordinance would not change or review the process for narrowing sidewalks, only for widening sidewalks that meet city law and are recommended for approval by city agencies. all other changes would go through the current process, and the committee recommended approval of this process for the board. and the india park introduced by

supervisor cohen was before the committee. you unanimously approved this last year. it would amend the plan as it extends across third street to allow a multi-use health care service at 53rd street. the legislation would enable a medical clinic up to 15,000 square feet as a principal use and above c.u. subsequent to the committee's action, supervisor cohen amended the legislation in response to concerns from industrial neighbors. at the january 30 committee, the land use pass legislation as the committee report and the full board voted on it the following day. they also approved it unanimously. other items before the full

board -- i think that was the only thing before the full board. there were a few things introduced i would like to share with you. and the first is the ordinance you work on, the restaurant ordinance, which has simplified controls for restaurants. the changes you have and you're hearing were numerous, so what happened is instead of revising that in committee, a full new ordinance that incorporates your modifications has been introduced come and that is currently under the 30-day hold. i should mention supervisor wiener and a lotolgaue for supervisors of that. supervisor kim supervise legislation for [inaudible] . president chu introduces

nomination for some thcindy wu. this item will be heard at 1:30 today, along with a nomination for board of appeals. moving on, i have the board of appeals report. they did not meet last night, but the board president has dominatenominated mr. zaoto. both of those nominations in the charter of them it will be heard later on today. that concludes my report unless there are any questions. >> thank you. commissioner antonini: mr. rogers, in the proposed legislation is passed, would require us to look at the negative affects of any

particular project might have on the loss of jobs in one way or another. one would assume this is in addition to i believe it was pro p h that require the city to look at any negative impacts of legislation the city was passing. this would specifically target jobs, correct? >> that is correct. the comptroller's office started as a quick economic look to see if there is something that should be looked at and for their economic detail. there would be additional analysis reporting and perhaps advisory recommendations. in the same way that you review planning legislation, the board could not act on that legislation until either the commission had reviewed it for 60 days have passed. >> it is not project, it is legislation. commissioner antonini: right. thank you.

>> commissioners, historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, and there are really only two items i would like to report. they considered the transit center district, survey update, and they adopted staff recommendation. they also heard article 10 and 11. they continued discussing their concerns for article 10 come and they had a chance to complete article 7, 11. we will have a full report on their actions when it comes before you later today. to cook the commission might be interested in the project that that eache hpc approved yesterd

they approved the restoration of the building and reuse as an office building. you will see that as well. they will insert a mezzanine floor and converted to offices. very interesting project that you will be seeing in a few weeks i think. >> that concludes those reports. commissioners, you are now at the 15 minute general public comment category. the public may at trust you on items that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction. with the exception of the agenda items, they may not be addressed during the category, but only at the time they are reached on calendar. it is important to remember this category has a 15-minute time limit, and there are a number of speakers. and >commissioner moore: thank -- president miguel: thank you.

chilinda chapman and brad hall. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name mashoshona mgrew. i wanted to present this information regarding the proposed soccer field. it that could be given to the commission? thank you. i worked for the rec and park for 37 years. i was an active member in the master plan for golden gate park. and i am opposed to putting plastic, artificial turf down at the historic beach chalet. you have heard this before, but i wanted to bring it to the new

commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. catherine howard. i am here today to talk about the soccer field project. this project will be located at the western end of golden gate park. they will remove the metal and replace it with over 7 acres of artificial turf, gravel, plastic, and ground up tire waste. they will install 10 at 60-foot lights that will be on that from sunset until 10:00 every night of the year. i have a letter today which you may not have seen. it was submitted by the cultural landscape foundation. the cultural landscape foundation is dedicated to increasing the public's awareness and understanding of the importance and irreplaceable legacy of the cultural landscapes. through education, technical assistance and are reached they have brought and awareness and support for historic landscapes

nationwide in hopes of saving the price lids -- priceless heritage for future generations. cultural landscapes provide a sense of the state and identity. the map our relationship with the land over time and part of the national heritage and lives. later i will give you what was given by the president of the natural landscape foundation. he is author of the national park service's guideline for the treatment of cultural landscape. thiin his letter he encourages e city to accept only alternatives that are acceptable to the department. the project, as proposed, will result in a substantial adverse impact and potentially affect the significance of the athletic fields. we ask that you seriously analyze alternatives that would

not negatively affect the integrity of golden gate park. sf ocean edge supports the soccer field. there is an alternative that protects the integrity of golden gate park and preserving the birdie -- preserving the beauty of the part for you today in future generations. we ask the planning department's consider the alternative that follows. renovate the field with national grass and no night lighting. renovate the west's sense that playground with improved playing services and lighting for youth soccer. i will submit this for review. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. executive director of livable city. i will not be able to stay for an ordinance later on in the agenda, but i want to speak generally about the bonus of the

height bonus. this is one of the best ideas to come out of the eastern neighborhoods in southern neighborhood planning. the idea is if you are in a 40 foot zone you and allow -- you allow an additional 5 feet. doing so creates much more generous commercial spaces, which are must -- much better adaptable to a variety of uses. and it is a great urban design. it will also help create really depressed neighborhood commercial districts. i think about 18 street where i live. the reason they are able to do that is ground force spaces are flexible enough that you can have all kinds of uses. lifting the ground floor of a little bit creates in the first base that is adaptable to a wide variety of uses. we think it should be done and all the districts in the city

that allow mixed use. all of the sea districts c distc districts in mixed uses. that said, i just want to talk about the transportation sustainability program. this was on your agenda last week. mostly this is headed in the right direction. if you look at who will pay the impact fees like a non-profit thing like salvation army, but a parking structure will not pay the impact fee. the reason being there is a way in which the department as an environmental review. no amount of parking will change it in any way. you will remember me discussing this with regards to the city place development. i said if you put more parking in there, there will be more. south was thing that is not true. i think your director said it is

generally true but not true in the case of city place. it is generally true, we should fix it. it runs contrary to economic theory. if so, the downtown plan should not work. sf park should not work. classical economic should not work. the problem is if you make the assumption that the 10,000 parking space garage will not generate any additional vehicle trips, still no feet. we really need you to fix this. you will get a logjam of stability -- stupidity behind this. the amount of parking does affect parking behavior. plan accordingly. this plan will give you a discount if you do less parking. we need the commission to take the next up and say if you do for parking, you have a bigger impact really hope when this is

board -- before you for adoption that you include this in the provision. thank you. >> linda chapman of a conditional use of alcohol licenses. i do not want to presume to tell you, but i heard a lot of confusion about what your authority was or was not from the city attorney's office and staff. and i just want to reiterate as best i can understand from having gone to abc and consulted with abc, you are the ones that have the additional authority. on the land use, because as i mentioned come if you say no it should not be here, it will not. they will defer to you with regard to whether or not it can be here and what are the conditions of the conditional use. they cannot proceed until your

conditional use condition has been done. i suppose when you say you understand sometimes you understand you cannot make a decision on alcohol, but maybe that is an area where there are not conditional use. there are areas like market street or something. in our area all of them are conditional uses. you could stop all of them dead or at least restrict hours like you will do on one today i am glad to see. that is your authority. some of them will go to the board of supervisors, but do not assume they will. maybe if there is a liquor store come it will go there. because abc will send it there. if there is food involved or restaurant, it is not going to go there, or a 47 license, not going to go to the board of supervisors unless there is an actual conditional use appeal.

at abc they are going to say the planning commission said it was ok, no problem there. the board of supervisors normally says it is ok as far as we can tell. it is important to realize that if you send notices we might realize it. the board of supervisors does not send notices for those hearings. when i talk to the committee secretary, she cannot tell me how to give notice. i guess we can look at the committee every single week, but they can apply any time before they come here or after they come here for the hearing they have come if they have won. and they do not necessarily. the only happen if they are in a high-crime area or over saturated. and in addition there is no food involved. it is really important that you actually be asserting your authority when you can't can now they're going around try to get

groups to change positions. and i hope that you are asking staff to report to you so you can perhaps amend the conditions to do what you want them to do. president miguel: thank you. >> members of the commission, brad paul. i know how much your looking forward to reading this. i thought i would draw your attention to one page and i think you might find really interesting. that is page3b4. it is where the answer my questions about the construction question. i said based on math it would take 22. they say at the bottom of the page i am right. and it will take 22 months. they further say it at an updated by the project sponsor's construction project in the following way. on the next page they cross out

20 trips per day and write in 19 per day. why those numbers? that is how you get to keep seven months. let's take a look at what that really means. if you go from 20 truck trips today to 19, you go from three trucks an hour to 14 an hour. what that means is to go from a truck every 20 minutes to a truck every four minutes. you go from 100 trucks per day to two minutes. we're talking about putting a dump truck on the embarcadero every two minutes. there is another problem, and that is traffic lights. as you pull out of the site you start to hit traffic lights. the one at washington yesterday at a time and it is at 45 seconds. i happen to know about dump trucks. my grandfather owned one. when it was full, it was very

hard to stop and start up. you have the traffic lights all along the embarcadero. if you're trying to keep trucks going down the street, it is going to be a mess. the common say it is not a problem, do not worry about it-- the comments say it is not a problem, do not worry about it, but you have to wonder. even if they said we are wrong by 100 percent signed, they went from 20-mad to 90. there is no explanation about what the discrepancy is all about. the only conclusion one could come to is the discrepancies are the only way you get to keep the seven-month time. remember, these trucks going out every two minutes are going to go out during the america's cup.

if you go down and see a truck right now, there is a truck coming from the pier 27 site. the trucks are on the right. everyone pulls out of the left lane because they are so frustrated. and so the whole left lane gets clogged up. it is going to be a mess. these traffic lights are all the way along the embarcadero. i would encourage you to read the page. things you. -- thank you. president miguel: any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the deputy director of spur. i want to let you know we have a new expedition opening tuesday night. it is on the topic of what it will take for housing to get the -- our housing to get to survive the next major earthquake. i want to invite you to attend.

we have a couple of postcards that i will need for you to take a look at. thank you. president miguel: additional general public comment? if not, the general public comment is closed. and thank you. we will start your general calendar with item number 11. we are taking it out of order. it is case number 2 thousand 11 011.0167t. ." >> sophie hayward. the item before you is a planning commission and them is to article 10 and 11. action before this commission is whether to adopt a proposed amendment and forward them as proposed war further

modifications on to the board of supervisors for their revike toe supervisor wiener is here and request that he address you before i give my full presentation. just in case you do not copies of the proposed ordinance, i brought additional drops for you. -- drafts for you. supervisor wiener: good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for having me. since the last time i was here we had a hearing at the stapur preservation committee and i spent time in dialogue with the commission, and the commission developed recommendations yesterday. last time i was here on january 18 i gave you an extensive presentation on the amendments.

i do not feel the need to do that again. i will refresh your memory if you need that, but i wanted to point out a few things. first, and i cannot recall if this happened right before or right after the last commission hearing, and as a reminder, almost all of the proposals are already in compromise form. i start off with the proposal and to engage in months and months of discussion and negotiation with planning staff and others, so almost all of these significant items are not in original form. they are the result of negotiation and compromise. as always, that is an important part of the legislative process. i did work out language with planning staff around standards, so my proposal is -- hpc has

apparently accepted it, for land -- individual landmarks and contributors within historic districts the secretary of interior standards shall be applied, in addition to the local interpretations and applications that will be developed for non-contributors in vacant lots. the secretary standards shall be considered, in addition to the local interpretation of application. i think this goes a long way and allowing us to craft a comprehensive set of interpretations of the standards for recognizing the unique urban context, while also acknowledge in a higher standard should apply. the one area where i disagree with the hpc in this provision is i am proposing a process be a joint process, and that both hpc

and planning commission would need to sign up on the final product. the rationale being historic preservation is an important policy among at numerous, and this commission is charged with taking the broad view of how preservation fits into the complete context. i think it is extremely important for the planning commission to sign off. hpc has expressed the view that only they should sign off and the planning commission should simply have feedback role. i disagree with that strongly. the hpc, as i discussed last time, i have included an interpretation and pro- affordable housing provision allowing for a limited economic hardship to opt out for individuals experiencing

hardships who would then -- if they cannot afford to maintain property to the maximum historical degree that might typically be required, they went work with planning staff to find alternative that is lower cost, but still appropriate. in other words, they did not get a complete free pass to put in aluminum windows, for example. also taking into account the affordable housing project for low income coming very low- income, moderate-income and for middle income. affordable housing projects are typically constrained. the historic preservation commission recommended removing that section entirely. i strongly disagree with that. it should remain in. we need to make sure we are not harming our historic districts

and supporting affordable housing projects. and there was some push back in particular that the affordable housing component goes up to 150% of ami. i believe heritage has inaccurately described that as market-rate holding. that is inaccurate. 80-120% is a moderate income. at 120-150 is middle income. if you have housing that is restricted up to 150% of ami, it is not luxury housing. it is housing we desperately need in the city where we are losing the middle class. and so i disagree with the agency's decision to remove the entire section. they also -- one of my proposals is to require an on-finding informational survey vote of

property owners that would be used for information for policy makers in deciding whether to let the legislative district, the hpc recommend in removing the vote aspect of it and making it just out reach. i disagree with that. i believe the survey vote should remain. there was some expression that tenants should be included in addition to property owners. if there is a desire to include tenants in that vote, if the commission would like to amend -- recommend that come i am open to that, but it does make it more challenging to get a majority of people to vote. if heritage or others are interested in including property owners and this commission wants to recommend that, i am open to considering that. i did initially limit the property owners, because they're born to be the most directly

impacted by creation of a district. and-- they're going to be the most directly impacted by creation of a district. they recommended removing the 66% of property owners required to have a hearing on nomination. that is in articles 10 and 11 for many decades. hpc recommended removing that. i suggested keeping it in pure and i agree with this as suggested reducing that to 56% plus one. i am fine with that. finally, there are a couple of unique items relating to article 11 about having -- miss hayward can describe in more detail, the 180 they hold and relating to demolition. i disagree with their desire to strip those out. in som