involves some [speaker not understood] historic preservation matters, it would go to hpc for comment. >> one, just in terms of process, while it is -- it is correct, i believe, that in order to hear supervisor kim's legislation, it would have to go through the hpc first. if president chiu in formulating his amendments would see that and determine there are certain aspects of it that were liked or not liked, those could be amended into my legislation. in other words, that would be an acceptable process. >> that's certainly up to you. it would be helpful for us to hear from the commission on this matter just so we know. i can't speak for the hpc or the planning commission on this matter, but it would be helpful to hear from them on that.

>> just for the sake of discussion, my preference is that we do allow planning and hpc to hear this, especially the pieces of -- if we choose to do it for the pieces -- legislation i'm introducing tomorrow gets put in as amendments to this current legislation, i would like those amendments vetted by the commission. would it be possible for them to be heard in the month of april so that we could hear it on may 6? >> let me just -- [multiple voices] >> planning department is conferring on the schedule. john give more, want them to clarify on the referrals. the board's rules require that the matter be referred [speaker not understood] administrative code amendment regarding the planning. it must be referred to the planning commission for 30 days.

the charter requires that it be referred to the hpc allowing the hp c9 0 days. and if supervisor wiener's legislation were amended, if you were to work out an amendment and that amendment were material modification to -- that the hpc had not yet considered, supervisor wiener's amended legislation would have to be referred to the hpc as well. >> ms. rogers. >> ann marie rogers, planning department staff. so, we did get a copy of the digest from your staff. so, we think we could look over the ordinance and publish a written report by next week on the 18th for hearing at the planning commission the following week, the 25th. unfortunately there is no hpc except for the first and third wednesdays. that's why we get the first time we could bring it to the hpc would be the first.

[speaker not understood] to date so far the hpc has acted every time we've brought an ordinance to them. it is within the recommend many of reason they may take action on the first reading. did they take action on the reading on the first, that would enable board to make any amendments that were in your ordinance at your next board land use committee hearing. >> supervisor kim. >> again, my preference is that the legislation that i introduced does get fully vetted by both the planning commission and historic preservation commission, especially i would also love to expedite my legislations in general. i do find that legislation is better when it is fully vetted through several public processes and that we're able to get feedback from those that are intimately involved in the process. and even though i may think this my idea is the best, i do often get very good feedback from commissioners on -- in terms of things i may not have thought of or even members of

the community who worked with us on the legislation may not have thought of. my request would be that we allow the time -- hopefully we can still get it heard at the planning commission, hpc given the fact the subject matter has been in the pipeline for a while as introduced by supervisor wiener, but i would like us to have time to be heard by the commission. my request would be to continue it to may 6 because i believe then we will have allowed both commissions to have heard it. my understanding is -- i'm not sure -- [speaker not understood] also land use committee on april 29th. >> we may not have it on the 29th, but we will have it on the 22nd. >> okay. well, my preference is that we actually hear it after it's been heard by both commission bodies. >> i guess my perspective on this, you know, ultimately [speaker not understood] all members of the committee think is that this legislation of

course has been pending since last year. this is now the sixth public hearing that we've had on it. we have had three hearings at the historic preservation commission. we've had two hearings at the planning commission, and now this hearing today. as far as i can recall, none of my colleagues went or asked to have their staff go to present anything or any perspectives at either of the commissions. the legislation that was introduced was introduced in a way where it wasn't approved as to form by the city attorney's office. it contains some pretty brad cat provisions in it so i'm happy to hear that it's being amended and i hope that some of those provisions like requiring a certificate of exemption for any exterior modification to 85% of the building stock will no longer be in there, but i have not seen it yet. and, so, i cannot say what will be in that legislation.

i would love to see a copy of it, but i guess i will see it when the public sees it perhaps after it's introduced. i think that we will know tomorrow what that legislation says. i think that at that point president chiu, any other member of the board who wants to amend any of those provisions then can do so. but president chiu, if you would prefer that we have a longer continuance, then i would defer to that request. >> i think at this time i'd like to stick with what i had originally proposed. when i sat down with opponents to supervisor wiener's legislation, my question to folks has been, how much time do we need to really crystallize the issues that we have here? and what i was told was we can do that within a few week. and the reason i asked that question as you can imagine what i have to look at are colleagues who have been working on a piece of legislation for now almost half

a year. and then a piece of legislation that comes in at the last minute which i absolutely respect can come in. we will absolutely consider it. the planning department will provide its feedback. and during the process if we award to move something out of this committee two weeks from now, i think we could have an opportunity to get continuing feedback from various commissions on this. but my inclination is we keep this process going so that we really try to understand what our, i think, the best ideas that have come out of this discussion. some of which i think are embodied in supervisor kim's legislation and move forward a piece of legislation if that makes sense. i hope that is something we can do and i've asked all parties to work hard over the next few weeks to see if we can get there. and, again, if there are other ideas beyond that that come out of the planning hpc process what will be supervisor kim's legislation to move forward happy to kerr them. happy for that to be part of the discussion two weeks from now. but it ben, out of the spirit of really trying to move this

forward and do that in a way that balances all the interests here, that is the path i think i'd like to proceed on. and let me also say my understanding, i have not spoken to supervisor wiener about this directly, but i certainly heard it from many, many supporters of his legislation was that supervisor wiener, you wanted to move this legislation out of committee today. >> that would be my preference to move it out of committee today. it sounds like that's not going to happen. >> so, again, improbably making neither of my colleagues happy, but what i have proposed is a path that i think is trying to, trying to balance these interests and move this forward with the most deliberation that we can. but again, telling all parties, let's sit down quickly and try to get this done. >> supervisor kim, i also don't want to forget the technical amendments from the clerk. should we do that first or do you want to make a comment? >> new york city why don't we move the technical comments. so moved. >> that is a motion to accept the three technical amendments

from the clerk of the board. colleagues, can we take that without objection? [gavel] >> that will be the order. madam clerk, here are -- okay, supervisor kim. >> i may be be laboring the point. i don't understand the rush. most legislation takes at least six months to go through a process. so, i don't feel we'll be significantly delaying it adding another two weeks in order to allow this perspective of ceqa reform to be fully vetted by hpc and the planning commission. i do just want to note that there are a number of very controversial and complex policy matters that are before both the board and land use committee and i imagine that all three of us will be quite tied up in some of those other pieces of legislation as well. ~ over the next two weeks including condo conversion and others. so, i just don't see why we need to move it forward within two weeks and why we can't give it a full month. and also allow members of the public to fully digest the legislation that i have introduced which actually no one has seen in this room. so, either perspective of support or opposition to t i mean, i think they deserve an

opportunity to look at this and given the fact that we hear on average five appeals of exemptions and negative declarations a year when we give out over 5,000, i just -- i don't see the urgency in the reform. i think the reform needs to happen but i don't see the urgency in it happening two weeks versus a month. those are my thoughts but i understand that is the motion before us. >> i just want to respond to the very last point about the urgency and number of appeals, supervisor kim, because you raised the issue a few times. andervier about the number of appeals [speaker not understood] entitlement. the fact is that as has been pointed out, we should have done this more than 10 years ago. and we haven't. and as supervisor peskin mentioned, and sometimes people forget he was the first one that tried. supervisor alioto-pier and supervisor ma, this has been going on for a long time.

there are always reasons it doesn't move forward or gets delayed. there are projects that are impacted by this. the dolores park appeal which i think someone suggested some sort of oddity in the timing, we were all floored when that came in last week. no one saw that coming. and the fact is that right now the way the law is today, that was the process in my district, it took a year with dozens of community meetings and hundreds of members of the community participating where we had a good consensus result. after -- if the planning commission confirms the negative declaration, that can be appealed to the board of supervisors while that park project is in construction and it will have to stop as soon as it's filed. so, these appeals are happening. even the threats of them has an impact. even if the appeal doesn't materialize. so, i respect, supervisor, your view on a number of the substantive issues.

i don't agree that because we're not flooded with cat ex and negative declaration appeals, that means there is no urgency at all to making -- to actually codifying the procedure. so, i do have a different perspective on that. so, president chiu, you made -- is that a motion to continue to april 22nd? >> that is a motion to continue to april 22nd. the other thing i want to note is we will not have a board meeting on the 30th. so, the earliest this item could come to the full board, my understanding, would be may 7th. >> is my understanding. >> for feedback as we go through the process. so i want to point that out as well. >> thank you. so, the motion is to continue item number 1 to april 22nd. do we need a roll call on that? okay. madam clerk, can you please call the roll? >> on the motion to continue the matter as amended to april 22nd, 2013, supervisor chiu?

>> aye. >> aye. we have two ayes and one no. >> the motion passes and this matter is continued. >> madam clerk, can you please call items 2, 3 and 4 together? >> item numbers 2, 3, and 4 are ordinance amending the general plan, van ness area plan, in order to facilitate the development of a high density medical center at the transit nexus of van ness avenue and geary boulevard and reflect various elements of this use; and adopting findings, including environmental findings, planning code, section 340, findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> thank you. now, these items, and i'll ask ken rich to come up and explain. i believe are from the original cpmc -- i'll just wait for the room to clear out. one second, mr. rich. if folks could take their conversations into the hallway outside. if folks could please take their conversations outside. thank you very much. items 2, 3 and 4 are as i

understand them about the previous iteration of the cpmc deal before we took a very lengthy delay and came up with a compromise that the board passed. but i believe under state law because these are general plan amendments, we do have to make the recommendation and act on them or they will automatically be adopted. is that correct, mr. rich? >> that's correct. just really briefly, last year in the previous incarnation, the planning commission forwarded to the board some general plan amendments as well as some other legislation like planning code amendments. and a unique attribute of general plan amendments they are approved if the board does not disapprove them within 90 days, that 90 days was told by the ceqa appeal, but it's running again. and if the board doesn't disapprove those original general plan amendments which are now no longer relevant to the project before you, then they will become approved on may, late may, may 24th or 25th. so, we're asking the board to

go ahead and disapprove the previous general plan amendments. in june, you will have back in front of you revised general plan amendments reflecting the project that you saw a few weeks ago. >> thank you. thank you. so, i believe the request would be that we forward these with a negative recommendation to the full board? >> yes, that's correct. >> okay. and do we have to hear these twice at the full board or just once to reject them? okay, i think it might be just once, but i'm not totally sure about that. okay. is there -- colleagues, if there are no introductory remarks -- >> actually i want to make a quick introductory remark because i know there are folks here waiting for this. just to make it clear, we need to do this as a sort of technical matter to make sure we can move forward with the term sheet as we described. so, in case folks are wondering if this is somehow substantively related to what we decide, it is not. it is a perfunctory matter we need to engage in. >> otherwise we'll have a big, big mess on our hands if we

didn't take this action. we'll open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on items 2, 3 and/or 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can we have a motion to forward items 2, 3 and 4 to the full board with a negative recommend? tion >> so moved. >> and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 5? >> item number 5 is ordinance amending the planning code, by amending section 723, to extend the restriction on tobacco paraphernalia establishments in the polk street neighborhood commercial district for an additional three years and apply it to an area within one-quarter mile of the boundaries of the ncd; adding new section 788, to establish the lower polk street alcohol restricted use district for the properties located on polk street between california street to the north, o'farrell street to the south, and polk street's side streets between california street, larkin street, o'farrell street and van ness avenue; amending zoning map, sheet zn-02, to designate the lower polk street alcohol restricted use district; and making environmental findings, planning code, section 302, findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ restricted use district. >> thank you. and president chiu is the author of this measure which we had amended before and were required to continue. so, president chiu? >> thank you, colleagues. just a couple quick thing. first of all, i want to appreciate your consideration of this legislation. at last week's land use committee as i mentioned before, this legislation

embodies six months of work between my office, the residents, and merchants of the lower polk neighborhood. with all of the nuances that are described in the legislation, i do want to make a couple of additional technical amendments. first out of reflection of thoughts i know supervisor wiener had around the findings. i wanted to insert language that states, while night life is a significant cultural and economic positive that generates text revenues and jobs, san francisco needs to ensure that night life is safe and responsible while encouraging the vibrant night life reiterating what our city's goals have been around night life and ensuring safety and responsibility. and then the second technical amendment as requested by planning staff is that we clarify that the list of block and lots and the restrictive use district are exhausted so to insert at page 7 line 5 the following block and lot shall be the complete list of block and lots in the lowerer polk street restricted use district. i also want to say because we had a bit of conversation

around tobacco paraphernalia restrictions to clarify we are extending the restrictions for the polk street ncd throughout this legislation and to be clear that tobacco paraphernalia establishments any square footage of these items would not be permitted. we've already seen another tobacco paraphernalia store pop up on polk street and i want to make it very clear what we're talking about here. so, with that, colleagues, want to hopefully adopt these amendments after public comment and move this legislation forward with recommendation to the full board. >> thank you. and i just want to thank president chiu and his staff or let's say amy chan for their work on this legislation. when it was first introduced i had some questions about it. i know that president chiu and his office worked very, very hard with all stakeholders to make sure that the legislation reflected the needs of everyone involved.

i know ms. chan, i kicked her a little out of the entertainment commission, but she did it in a very professional and highly competent way. i think the dialogue around this has been really helpful and i also want to thank -- i know the findings are not binding, but just acknowledging the finding that night life, while we need to regulate it and make sure it's safe, has played an important role in the city. so, thank you very much for that, president chiu. supervisor kim, did you have any comments? no, okay. with that said, we will open the item up for public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak? ms. chapman. linda chapman from knob hill. if you had not deleted that finding it would have been better. you deleted the finding with the horrible conditions which is completely inaccurate and added some other finding i don't know. anyway i'm glad supervisor chiu looked into this. i was very happy with the way

that amy met with people and talked with peep and will so on. i feel that the conferring with residents didn't really encourage it to any extent. it was conferring with lower polk neighbors for sure. very few residents were there. when the supervisor comes a few may come. now here is somebody giving a remark from the back row. who is that? she introduced herself to me. she's from behind man. hinman being a lawyer, lobby for alcohol uses there. ~ and, so, you know, we have legislation where there is an intent to do something, but it doesn't include the kinds of provisions that are in other alcohol restricted use districts or ncds where they have a problem, you know. and, so, i don't see how this is going to be helpful. i asked if we could meet perhaps with amy. i know the supervisor is busy. there were a few people who wanted to meet, a pastor, i think stephen cornell was going

to be available and some others, and that didn't happen. we weren't able to do it. so, i really would appreciate it if you could continue this and actually allow us to do that. i don't see that this is going to help us at all. we're going to multiply more alcohol licenses. we have a big problem with those restaurants because they are open till 2:00 and it wasn't to close them earlier, they turn into bars and night clubs. it's about the only place in the city where, by right, they can stay open. and the former abc liaison from the police department said he was seeing that elsewhere, too. they get a license for a restaurant. they have no intention of running a restaurant. they want to run a bar and night club. the whole district is out of control. completely unlivable. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? just trying to dawn turner middle polk

lower neighborhood association. [speaker not understood]. we are happy to see action tightening on. this it is a very problematic issue in a neighborhood that directly affects us and we are glad to see this. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> if i could make a couple conclusionary comments. i really want to appreciate the work of the residents of lower polk neighbors. i also want to thank the middle polk neighborhood association and other polk residents and residents from knob hill that provided us feedback on this and our chairman also referred to the work that my aide did, amy chan did an incredible amount of work the last six months on a piece of legislation i thought was going to be far easier than i it turned out to be. and i want to thank her for her persistence in moving this through. and i also want to mention as i said last week [speaker not understood] we are also drafting that came out of

conversations around this to ensure that there are specific good neighbor policies that apply across the board to all night life establishments, at least in the lower polk area and other parts of polk street if that is something that other neighborhoods would want. at this moment there are only some night life establishments that are required to abide by standard good neighbor conditions, noise, security, lighting, after hour cleaning and other conditions and i will soon be introducing legislation to require all night life establishments, at least in the lower polk area middle polk and other areas on polk street to abide by these conditions so we have a level playing field so everyone knows what their responsibilities are. that will be coming shortly and that came out of the conversations that we had with folks and was different than what we were tying to do here with alcohol restricted use dribdistrict. i wanted to mention that is something i am commit today doing and look forward to that conversation. >> thank you very much, president chiu. any other comments? can we have a motion to move

item -- amend, make the technical. >> the amendments, thank you. president chiu has offered several amendments. can we take those amendments without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> and is there a notion to move item number 5 to the full board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> and can we take that without objection? so ordered. [gavel] >> madam clerk, please call item number 6. >> item number 6 is a resolution approving the grant of a tieback subsurface easement on assessor's parcel block no. 192, lot no. 035, to the chinese hospital association required for the chinese hospital replacement project; adopting findings that the grant of subsurface easement is consistent with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and environmental findings; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. ~ project. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. colleagues, you remember that last year we moved forward legislation to expedite the chinese hospital project. we have one additional legislative item we have related to that. i'd like to invite up the project sponsor to explain and also city staff to explain the issue. >> good afternoon, chair, supervisors. i'm with the real estate division. today we seek approval of the grant and easement between the

city and the chinese hospital association. the conveyors of this subsurface easement is required for the chinese hospital replacement project is located at 835 and 845 jackson street. the subject lot is owned by the city and is located at the end of trenton alley off washington street. the tie backs are necessary in order to prevent cave in of the soils of the perimeter of the center during excavation. we're also here [speaker not understood]. so, this property is a vacant lot. it's used as a surface parking lot and that is under the jurisdiction of the san francisco unified school district. the fee amount was negotiated and is reflective of the fair market value. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> i just had a quick question because i read that it's owned by the city, but the jurisdiction over this site is

sfusd. >> yes. >> and i was wondering if you could clarify that. >> we own -- the city owns it in fee, but right now it is currently under the jurisdiction of the school district. it's used for school employee parking lot. we are in the [speaker not understood] transferring fee to the school district because they originally purchased for school purposes. >> okay, i was curious. it's a parking lot for i assume the faculty [speaker not understood]? >> yes. >> thank you. >> any additional questions or comments, colleagues? then i guess we'll open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, if there are no additional questions or comments, can we have a motion to forward this to the board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, is there any other business before the committee? >> no, there are no further matters. >> we are adjourned.

thank you. [gavel] >> what if you could make a memorial that is more about information and you are never fixed and it can go wherever it wants to go? everyone who has donated to it could use it, host it, share it. >> for quite a great deal of team she was hired in 2005, she struggled with finding the correct and appropriate visual expression.

>> it was a bench at one point. it was a darkened room at another point. but the theme always was a theme of how do we call people's attention to the issue of speci species extinction. >> many exhibits do make long detailed explanations about species decline and biology of birds and that is very useful for lots of purposes. but i think it is also important to try to pull at the strings inside people. >> missing is not just about specific extinct or endangered species. it is about absence and a more fundamental level of not knowing what we are losing and we need to link species loss to habitat loss and really focuses much on the habitat. >> of course the overall mission

of the academy has to do with two really fundamental and important questions. one of which is the nature of life. how did we get here? the second is the challenge of sustainability. if we are here how are we going to find a way to stay? these questions resonated very strongly with maya. >> on average a species disappears every 20 minutes. this is the only media work that i have done. i might never do another one because i'm not a media artist per se but i have used the medium because it seemed to be the one that could allow me to convey the sounds and images here. memorials to me are different from artworks. they are artistic, but memorials have a function. >> it