alice griffith and the hotels and in addition marseille from the salazar and from urban strategy we appreciate your corporation and this that concludes my report. and myself as well as the development member team are here to answer your questions. thank you very much >> thank you. >> so thank you very much. at this point we'll open up items one and two to public comment it will be two minutes. any public comment on item one or item two. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor cowen would you like to make a motion >> i'm to send this to the full board to for a positive recommendation. >> we'll take that without objection. >> thank you very much. machine gun call item 3 >> item 3 is a resolution

approving the revenue bonds for the department not needing $2 million. >> we'll call up the director of housing. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm joan making mar the senior painting with the office of economic workforce development the resolution will authorizes the bond precedes to pay important the rehabilitation costs a 68 favorable housing union on webster street a nonprofit housing corporation is e h they are the current owner and will serve as the owner entity and the investment

limited partner has not been selected they have a section 8 subsidy that allows extremely low income names to pay thirty percent even if householder income another of thousand your understanding unites will have their housing set for one-on-one. the rehabilitation work with upgrade the repairing or a recreation and parks department major systems including plumbing and electrical those do not require the city to pledge repayment of the bonds. here today is e rh staff ethan painting and the director of real estate development and they

would like to say a few words >> good afternoon ethan i'll keep this short. the property is the only property inside the city so i know our company and myself is excited to make the improvements thank you joan for helping us through the process and supervisor breed for sponsoring this and the board for hearing it today. thank you >> we both available for any questions if you have my and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you at this point if there's no questions or comments we'll open this up for public comment any public comment on that item on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues could i have a motion to forward item 3 to the full board with positive recommendation

>> moved and seconded. >> madam clerk call item 4. >> it's on ordinance admitting the acholic beverage special use district. >> supervisor campos is the author and laura is here. >> thank you. so we're presenting >> microphone. >> thank you very much a change to the special use the acholic beverage district that will allow miniature golf course to serve acholic beverages. bowling alleys enjoy this expectation because they're an speciality and supervisor cowen buildings this is okay to benefit the contingent. directly benefits the ervin facility on 22nd and van ness they have the business that may

be in san francisco it's the only miniature golf in the entire city. and been dreamed of by san francisco residents and has been a great partner and community organizations. i have no further comment >> thank you, ms. lane. okay. if there are no questions oh, mr. star from the planning department >> good aaron starr the elective affairs for the planning department as laura pointed out this will allow miniature govlz golf course to obtain a liquor licenses they're not permitted now to obtain licenses within the mission district. the planning commission heard it and recommended unanimous

support with the following modifications b-1 c the uses of the bowling alleys are retained with other uses that don't require an entertainment permit and clarify the uses in subdivision b-1 with the eating establishments get the b c licenses they allow bowling alleys and skating rings to transfer liquor licenses with or without within integrated with the restaurant use. the commission recommended this modification so another modification will not be needed for a similar use for bowling alleys that want to open in the district and utilizes a defined used in the planning code for the clarity of the code. the second modification

clarifies the departments practice laughing uses to transfer liquor licenses out the su d if the abc. my understanding is the first recommendation was not included but the second one was. that's it thank you >> thank you mr. star ms. lane i have a question as supervisor campos decided not to accept the first recommendation. >> we're not moving forward we've not been able to get the community input so this will have a small control change that's not clean in the code that's a better way to get the community input for the special use district. >> mr. star this other entertainment uses so bowling

alleys, movie that's right and mini golfs. >> skating rinks and things like that we understand the supervisors reason to not. >> okay. thank you. so i very much support this legislation and support in legislation and this has been just a long and widening road for a number of years and the acholic beverage special district was put in place in the 90s out of concern for the proliferation of some colorful uses it's well intended. it was, however, a very, very blunt instrument and over time it evident up causing huge problems in terms of making it difficult for new and interesting businesses to come

into the mission and be able to serve beer. i have expressed because i co-sponsored several of those with supervisor kim i've expressed the u u d should be repealed and making those patchwork exemptions is not good i've supported them because they do improve the situation even though not addressing the root issue supervisor campos and i co-sponsored legislation about a year and a half guaranteeing ago to transform the controls within the su d. i think there's something to be said with the recommendation of the planning commission the bowling alleys we allow them to

open and it's phenomenal we have a single athlete groups to allow them to serve alcohol and now for mini golf given the list read by mr. star we shouldn't have to when a business comes in the area they should not have to get special legislation because we just did movie that's right but businesses he said to be innovative to the roller skating rink so i really think that the first recommendation should be accepted and colleagues i don't know what you think but i'm open to an amendment to include the first recommendation from the planning commission. so i'm asking for input if colleagues supervisor mar >> can i ask mr. star to repeat

first recommendation and supervisor camposs position on the second one as well. >> so the first recommendation is to modify section d one c that's the machining golf course and strike out bowling alleys and put other uses that don't require a permit. that was added because those types of uses this are poetry recitals and live music performances other types of uses that are typically clued if the uses. way - >> away was 0 it to add the language for the miniature golf.

>> supervisor wiener's ideas to board even it. >> to one in case another use wants to open up it will allow that without another ordinance and the definitions. >> what did you say about poetry recitals. >> the other entertainment is other uses and i think anytime that you do serve amplified sounds you need a place of entertainment permit. >> poetry was with amplified sound. >> yes. >> it would not be permitted with under our modification the idea was to take anti things that require places of entertainment predicament to narrow the types of entertainment. >> so a poetry recital i use

the microphones you'll fall into the general requirements the alcoholic beverages and hoping there's other ways to serve beer or wine. >> you wouldn't be able to have a poetry recital use a place that only does poetry retilt i silt with the restaurant and serve acholic beverages. >> that's ridiculous how those controls are. >> mr. chairman, i - and we've loud the alcoholic has b there been my crime incidents what's the trend i know that urban puts has been open for a while but

what about other businesses we've allowed alcohol. >> i'm not having the information with me. >> there's a good neighbor policys that are connected with the code and that would be helpful for me to know if the businesses have been boyd by the good neighbor policies and the last thing i support is legislation and i think the planning commission suggestions as well. i think that upper put and other businesses are benefits to neighborhoods but as they work with the neighbors to make sure that the families and especially children have access during the daytime hours but also their hopefully listening to the miniature golf inside is goes to

12 or a.m. and it protects the folks from allowing alcohol where the urban put is. it would be good to get the information about my crime reports if the expansion from the theatre and the mission bowl that would be helpful to me >> sure. >> okay. can i - mr. chair can i make a motion >> i want to move with we amend item 4 to adopt the first recommendation. >> i'll second. >> okay. >> supervisor and john gibner, deputy city attorney just before you act on this motion this amendment would not require going back to planning but

require continuance in the committee before what we go forward. >> okay. so there's another motion and can we take that without objection. >> can i have a motion okay. we have to resend it now we're going to open up for public comment any public comment on that item on item 4. seeing none, public comment is closed. and so there is a motion i'll make a motion as indicated before and we'll take that without objection. on the amendment can i get a motion to continue item 4 by one week >> so moved. >> thank you madam clerk call item 5. >> the ordinance rerep

ordinance and adapting a housing element. >> okay. so on item 5 which is come from the planning department is here. >> hello so good afternoon supervisor wiener and supervisor mar and supervisor cowen i'm from the plaintiff i'm here to present the 2009 adapt by planning commission and recommended to you more approval. the how are you element is one of 7 elements from the general plan it's a long term comprehensive plan for the city and county of san francisco >> the housing law by the housing community development requires that local governments meet the low and low income

residents for the housing elements. the 2009 element was approved to meet the states basic requirements and also with the input of community members that includes specific issues like neighborhood character and infrastructure to support the growth. the housing element provides the background for the housing decisions and the public for the meeting the cities goals. the housing element provides the fraction for future decisions and oils the programs for the objectives and the policies. adaptation of the housing element didn't modify the land use regulation for the bulk limits nor suggests specific controls for specific neighborhoods it didn't add

changes to the zoning map my such changes requires the community outreach as well as hearings by the planning commission and the board of supervisors. in march of 2011 the plaintiff presented the element to the planning commission and it was adapted by the board of supervisors. we're here to present the same housing element by a lawsuit to challenge the 2004 and 2009 element eir and the adaptation of the 2009 element. the court ordered the city to set aside it and reconsider the housing elements. in response to this it was done by analyze and circulated to the community. the revised eir was certified on

april 2014 and based on that the planning commission recommended the adaptation of the 2009 elements. the planning commission continues to remedy the adaptation of the element as the housing element of the general plan the 2009 was developed in coordination with the mayor's office. the commission found that the 2009 element balances the courts values including the prioritization of the housing and the recognition of the housing character and the jobs transportations infrastructure and the city's roll as a sustainable model for rolls. its consistent with the planning code sections and was developed in coordination with the general policies. analysis of the policies is determined in the hoosiers

element. the commission recommends the housing element adaptation according to the lay and it helps our decade for the community development continue our eligibility for state and community and infrastructure fund and this is particularly important because of the mayor's office directive for the affordable housing. and will allow the city to begin the process for the development of the 2014 element that is due to the state no matter january 15th and it is recommended to be adapted. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much colleagues, any questions or comments regarding item 5. okay in that case we'll open item 5 for. and i have two cards.

(calling names) >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm kathy. i'm an attorney representing san franciscans for liveable neighborhoods the appellant in this case. we're here because the superior court of san francisco found that the city violated the requirement of the california virtual quality act about when it approved the final impact report for the 2004 and 2009 plan because the analysis of alternatives in the eir was conclusionary and not supported by fax and the finding rejecting the finding were conclusionary the court ordered the approval of the housing element set aside for the reasons stated in san franciscans reliveable comments

submitted to the decision and the planning commission on our appeal to the board of supervisors for the eir certification we respectfully oppose the housing element because the deficiencies have not be occurred and their unsupported by fax as are the proposed finding. as an example faeflt a was defined as subject to all the area plans where 95 percent of the growth is expected by i eir says the housing will be dispursued because of the resident policy by the way, the majority of policy will be directed to the housing makes no sense so because of the time limps we don't have 07, 8, 9 to

present it we oppose the project respectfully and go forward with our appeal to the certification of the board. i assume that concludes the time >> we'll have that sequa appeal at the board of supervisors. thank you >> thank you. >> sir. >> can i have the overhead. age after beauty. i represent san francisco tomorrow we support the appeal of the san franciscans for the neighbors. the fact we're number one in the nation and the cost of housing construction is due to the lack of an efficient active problematic and enforceable housing element. those are indicated by the fact

that the city is allowed discretion for the affordability but not the interpretation of the states mandate for what is required in the housing elements. it's inconsistent with what is required in terms of the internal alignment with the general plan and with proposition m that requires a neighborhood be affordable and preserve neighborhood character it doesn't acknowledge the fact it has 50 thousand unit high-end in the pipeline and effectively on the scariest cities resources like you land affordability and costs and service programs it denies that the prop m has

standing over the people over the board of supervisors. it's therefore i sustain that it is an abuse even if power an abuse of power to the continuation because it makes the board come polite as well as the officers of the court thank you for your attention send it back >> bay here's the law your avoiding. >> thank you, ms. hill son. >> good afternoon, supervisors of the land use committee the eir doesn't adequately consider the feasible faechlts one to maintain the density limits to protect the neighborhood character it was dish and not krethd e corrected in the vesting process it was not

evaluated with the advisory committee and not subject to the eir draft period the june 2010 draft is a feasible alternative that will help with the rh1 and rh2 neighborhoods the 2009 housing elements will produce more housing elements and over the market rate housing it's contrary to the allocation the 2009 housing element has a significant impact on transit. transit is over capacity and streets are congested in the central and eastern neighborhood. this is nonresponsive to comments thank you for your time >> thank you is there any further public comment on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed.

thank everyone that came out today and colleagues, we have a pending appeal at the board of supervisors so we'll need to forward this without re78gs because we can't act on it until the sequa appeal has been resolved. supervisor mar >> yeah. i wanted to ask is it ms. missouri hand i know we've this has been before land use before every what is is every four or five years i have a question about neighborhood concerns. i know in the housing element an package 37 issue 6 there's a stated goal to maintain the unique character of the san francisco neighborhood the mayors has a huge goal to meet the inner city housing could you walk us though how united states

community has a say in projects that move forward according to our housing units especially protecting and middle-income and how we maintain the character >> so i think i said in my opening remarks this is the cities vision and anytime we do my in depth work that is for a planning effort so we what we address neighborhood character or work in areas we don't have the planning we'll work with the board of supervisors before any legislation occurs. >> it's my understanding this is not a blanket approval but there's a process for individual environmental reviews and you're saying a general vision and goals of our housing needs in the city?

>> yes. that's correct. >> thank you. thank you supervisor mar. any other questions or comments colleagues. okay could i get a motion to forward item 5 to the full board without recommendation >> we will we'll take that without objection.. madam clerk, any other business before this commission? >> there's no further business. >> then we are adjourned.