is not going to work and san francisco is on the kelly whitcraft of pitting restrictions and push the change and have dialog about how to make themselves unique. i'm supportive of the staffs proposal your last comment about dropping of the enforcement is interesting. sever ability sorry. was interesting and we'll see what the other commissioners say >> the sever ability is not going anywhere with me. that's a non-start is increasing 11 up is a non-starter the consideration of the mid-market should be rethought i think the action is going to be on mission street take a look at that and talk about to the supervisor kim

about that why did there's a lot more apartments being built on mission had an market there's a different kind of opportunities for small businesses on mission especially on the south side where the controls are lessonsed and more store fronts that could take advantage of the formula retail. do we really have sign control and we have the guidelines peron henry but are they guidelines and their guidelines that staff would enforce and pretty specific modeled after articles 10 and 11 for hectic preservations and we're applying them to chain stores so this is

someplace we've identified we think it's nell necessary to use the same protection >> i've been surprised the city didn't have sign control but in my case that is an enforceable thing i'm glad about that. i think as far as the economic studies i don't think for small establishment their worthy it and i don't know what you're going to learn i'm on board and intensification i haven't thought about it i guess if you, did you is that supervisor mar's doesn't have the same language as the departments language with

respect to subsequent uses. that is why i wish the supervisors office was here we tabbed this issue xooeven and he replaced the idea i don't believe that he had amend the ordinance or put it in the e-mail. the primary thrust of our ordinance is putting together what is property and rational public policy for the city and part of that it making sure it can wraunld the test of time so the immense indication that was described to this commission is extremely thorough and hard to know of a situation and the guidelines will apply to formula retail and in all cases the cu b

will not be required. the dr will be a possibility >> just because starbucks has more outlets than pete's didn't make any difference that example just uses numbers one establishment has 2 thousand outlets and one 2 hundred 1 hundred to the intensification going one way didn't makes sense purely basing it on numbers i can see did formula retail uses that kind of thing but unless it's a drastic change between 4 thousand and 4 hundred and 50. >> that's why we used the dhan

to a bigger chain homogenization is based on a repetitive number of stores so that is the more homogenizes store. >> i understand that but beyond a certain number is doesn't matter one-on-one someone that has 20 versus 10 but if it's the way it works then i don't think i have a better solution. >> commissioner moore. >> to you the planning department and the departments that helped to frame the policy and thanks to the folks for the initial study it initially brought that into the many, many months of heated discussion.

but it was an amazing effort the outcome today, it's interesting they're to proposals in certain spanks support each other and others that need time to clarify i'm supportive of the unmodified proposal by supervisor mar. but i'm equally supportive of the planning department to go forward and to the board of supervisors ultimately to decide how to merge those things there are certain aspects of the proposal is two new and it sound like there's issues that are not part of what we're talking about the neighborhood notification is something we should not be

diminish because the formula retail in general is changing the neighborhoods which with had will be looking at it and their overview is i think more typical of how the city is virtually and sustains it's vitality and we can't predict that >> there might have been some missy context we're not going to reduce the public notification it's extensive mail notice on 0 the store and in the newspaper the notification will happen it's just mars wants to increase the notification. >> i want have to see that i support the xooeven notification

of the information but that's right the type of joining of forces i'm looking for i think the staff did an amazing job when we suggested to hold-off the parties had a large last year strengthening of the forces and as i said i'm supportive of supervisor mar's legislation going forward without the departments notification that's his protective that requires a full ongoing discussion i am interested in and very supportive of expending the issue of subries which is a difficult and complicated thing to understand now including how it's changing in a rapidly changing economy. as you're spending more time on

the pros and cons hopefully, we'll make an intelligent decide including using f it for a period of time but i'm interested in not to weaken the prop g we've been given american people extremely strong and litigate i didn't and brilliant piece of lchgs on the legal challenges that occur to my of the things they're talking about and doing in light of that i want other people including the board of supervisors add their wisdom when it comes to physical examination nailing down the daily >> thank you. so for me there a number of schangz that are very positive. looking at the district and the

vicinity that sxachz the hashing hark war there was an aha momentum this provides the commission more information to make an informed decision. i like the changes to the intensification. i can't support the non-service ability clause and i am supportive of staying its 12 versus going to 20. ideally the perfect legislation would be essentially the planning commission legislation without the sever ability clause and gouge from 12 to 20 pr he know we don't have that option in front of us we have two pieces of legislation i can't support the planning commission

proposal my support of supervisor mar's legislation is really a comment on the 12 to 20 but on the other pieces the notification the economic impact study and the upper market i'm supportive of the staffs recommendation. >> commissioner. i know you have two versions before you so one way to address that if the commission tabs as you did eloquently you can modify the draft or proposed to modify him so all the commission needs to do is articulate in your version as a base. >> commissioner antonini. >> well we'd be at reflex to be

here all night and in my mind the choices are clear only the non-sever ability clause staff would you mind my making a motion including on the staff recommendations being able to capture enough commissioners to get us out of here. it's clear you have to vote for one or the other and while you have to vote is now but the way it is put together i will make a motion to leave out sever ability but make a motion and the staff recommendation and my motion will be the staff recommendations for the ordinance of supervisor mar which eliminating the four items where they're in conflict with staff because on those four items you're on one side of the fence or is other side so quite

simply to support the staff ordinance with the deletion of the number one sever ability clause and to support the staff recommendation on the ordinance by supervisor mar. >> second >> i don't think you can have two motions in one. >> i believe we should take separate. >> you're voting on a parentheses legislation on two things i can demand the changes we're not asking to vote on one or is other only do what i normally do what ann marie was suggesting you make a recommendation on both of them they railroare subsequentially

same so make the changes to them both most of you don't want the number one sever ability clause i don't know what the excision is feeling open the number and on a couple other issues but seems like we make a recommendation that both pieces of go forward in the same form and articulate the changes. >> well, i think staff has done that or director where my motion so to the staff recommendation eliminating the sever ability clause and on supervisor mar's - >> one at that time, would be the hey. >> okay. he, do that one first and supervisor mar's number two. >> call the question. commissioner johnson.

i'm sorry, i have a question about the motion so maybe i'll ask the question. so he suggested a few things that are minor details do we need to talk about those before we vote for example, i feel strong bely about the open outlets determining i want to get out of here if there's things that will happen later >> everything can happen later right now our doing if you are digging if you want to send our own version and that will give them our actions to consider and recommended changes to commissioner mccray's he's not bound to incorporate those our

afterward supervisor mar tips to move on to the action on the board at the fall so the questions you want to advise. >> sorry that's not this motion. >> if i may i think a lot of the value of our discussion will actually be in the discussion and clearly staff they've been taking notes and listening he building that supervisor mar's office will be watching or watching as well so i think there are many points we can see if we can come to agreement but we can continue to advocate for issues you see and the vote will be the vote the commission has the option to send those forward and let the discussion continue at the board of supervisors. >> excuse me. will you clarify that that is basically

saying not to vote but forward with recommendation. >> i vote we vote own 12 a and b but regardless of how the votes turn out it is important that the discussion is held and the supervisors hear the discussion. >> we can forward without a recommendati recommendation. >> kate from the staff if the commission wants to consider more changes the commission to tell you the truth 0 look at those and commissioner johnson talked about taking anti part the definition i'd recommend that the commission consider that now in order to recommend what's the planning commission protective to the board of supervisors and if the makers of the motion and the maker of the

motion and the second are open to hearing those issues and maybe including the proposed changes that's a cleanerer way so the planning commission protective will, in fact, reflect what the planning commission recommended. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> yeah. commissioner johnson let me know go over our proposed amendment so i can decide if i want to amend my motion. >> 3 things first taking out not changing the current definition of open locations to include permitted locations. the second one is to not oh, man what did i have.

the second one is to not have sorry my not are all over the place and the second one is the sdiefrn batted criteria to not i want to adjust the criteria of transparencycy i don't know we can don't do that i don't know how to do that that's part of the cu >> you'll have to ask the director we have transparency for all basically. >> so stick with the first one in terms of the intensification criteria take out the chain to a larger clean. >> ongoing so what would be you're determining factor if you

didn't i guess intensification if it goes large but not smaller. how would you handle. and there are 3 areas of intensification together they account for how larger changes cha chains do best we can account for the fact the larger corporation presidents to take ether by around the suby criteria and well, i probably would be supportive who's the seconder >> i mean, i kind of i'm extremely supportive i'd leave immense can say as say, i would take it out. >> can you speak into the microphone. >> i support the motion.

>> motion as made and the other part of the amendment would be rather than having open hand only have open counted. >> that, too was an issue the existing there was a real example of at least by not permit. >> that's been vetted from a number of stakeholders. >> that's true i think the question was between leased or permitted not so much between open and permitted the question was the board of appeals was counting lease but you can have a lease without entitlements we didn't want to call that formula retail because they have a wlaes

you may not get the entitlements once they have the entitlement they're basically on the board even if they're not opened it. i'd like to support the amendment i'll stay with my original motion >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i'd like to support sxhifg on his intensification. the other thing is how do we know how many they have >> with a big corporation like mcdonald's they profoundly don't know how many they have and they're opening a store everyday so i don't know. that's fraught with data issues let's put it that way >> that was what i thought about. >> if you may to repeat our motion.

>> to adapt for item 12 a to to to adapt the number one sever ability clause. >> i want a clarification the commission is adapting the policy performance based the guideline document too. >> yes. >> yes. >> okay commissioners there is a we have a motion and a second to adapt the number one sever ability clause and it's already to eliminate the number one sever ability. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore >> commissioner sugaya.

no interest commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 2. commissioner johnson i'd like to hopefully, we'll move quickly to supervisor mar's proposal i'll say i would noted proposed any conditions only moved the supervisor mar's legislation and let the board of supervisors handle that but for one decision i might make a suggestion to add the environmental impact report to the study he's currently proposed for the suby making that a joint refugee feel although it's been proposed it's

not going to be helpful for the commission decisions in a lot of areas and a little bit more thinking just an idea to add that to the six months study also the subries and commissioner antonini >> second. >> i'll make a motion i'd like to move to forward supervisor mar's legislation without modifications. >> second. >> with the suggestion around - >> that's just an idea not a modification i think it's - >> i think if the commission wants to send a message this is. >> it's an individual idea so we need the vote the majority of commission times wants to get this to the board.

>> i want to move forward supervisor mar's to the full board with the modification that the impact analysis be added to the six months study along with the study for subries rather than being a - >> could you explain what you mean by that you want the victim of crime impact studies to be looked at not to be can you remember some. >> to figure out what their going to study in the first place. >> is there a motion to remove. >> what was the language for the subries he if remove it but at it to the six months, however. >> he removed it so we could study it further. >> you are suggesting we remove

the economic version and also study it and remove the economic impact from the current legislation and add it to the action to study it for 6 months to determine what it is he will be studying and what the requirements would be. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i guess i'm going to speak against the motion it's in conflict with what we voted on i see you want to support that would you tell us the staff amendments the staff amendments are making it's ordinance in inclines with what we voted for its consistent with that motion you'll be leaving the threshold as telegraph hill not 9 or 20

and immense if i this and require economic impact studies for small promotions they're kind of inclusive so i'll vote against the motion as currently formulated. >> commissioner sugaya. >> that's fine i voted against the other motion we don't have to be consistent. >> in principle we're forwarding for the boarder daugs discussion for the board of supervisors so both staples for the resolution and all night change in the course of all of that. >> i'll vote for both pieces of legislation i stated my vote for supervisor mar's legislation is mostly about the 12 supporting the 20 but there's more work to be done there's been a lot of

encouraging words about wanting to continue to work together. commissioner antonini. well, as far as the board of supervisors they're going to take whatever we do and their change that i will vote against the motion it was consistent and so, you know, we were going to expletives them there are two different things but anyway, we'll see what happens >> commissioner moore. i could say as a counter argument while i voted against the plans motion there are many aspects the majority of them i support i worked on over a year expect with the rubber hits the road tim supporting supervisor

mar's for the reasons by president wolf. >> for approval with modification to remove the economic impact and add the words for the suby and commissioner antonini. no. commissioner hillis. snow o no arrest commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. no. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 3. commissioners that place us on general public comment. is there my general public commentin