correct statement? the ones related to 1 p and 1 g. >> it sounds correct because at the current time there is no landmark uses. >> commissioners, there is other parts of 803.9 that have been used like 660 third street. >> they are not being affected by this change, right? >> no because the planning commission just approved 660 third street at last week's hearing. >> i'm going back with the beginning where we are the historic preservation commission and not the zoning commission or zoning administrators and we have to be very careful weighting into the issue of zoning and it's hard to say if this has been successful or not. on one take would say this legislation to exist now is not necessary

because nobody has used it. so maybe, it's hard to say whether it's a necessary incentive or not. nobody has used it and seems that it's almost not necessary and we can say yes, it's fine to change it and modify it in a way. it's sort of arbitratorary. >> commissioners to provide a little bit of background we do receive called on a -- calls on a regular basis to this section. henry adams is the property that qualifies for local landmark status and wants to use it. it's a very runt routine question that we hear. while people are in inquiring about it, my thinking is pretty

desirable from a developer point of view. 2 -henry adams is qualified to use it as the code stands right now. >> i guess saying arbitrary is the number of controls, how can we say what is the right numbers of controls and what do we know about pdr use and the zoning issues, that's kind of my point. >> these are existential questions that i don't have answers to. [ laughter ] >> commissioners i'm sorry, i was going to reiterate that those expertise realize what the criteria should be and what we'll need to evaluate if the code amendment goes through. we want to make sure we are providing you with what we can really respond to, but two, that you can use. if you don't this economic data is

useful for you but useful for the planning commission maybe we need to make that distinction. maybe you are more interested in the historic structures report rather than the other pieces. but hearing from you on how you think you would evaluate these properties if they were to come north -- forward in the future would be helpful for us. >> what i would like to do because we are not in a burning timeline, we have a moratorium and we have nothing else in front of us, i would prefer it come up with some answers to this economic first and come back to us on the first and then we generate a letter. i know that doesn't jive with your october 2nd planning commission meeting. i'm happy to forward comments, we have concerns of these items but i think that would be a better process to include all of this in a more robust discussion of solutions.

>> just a point of clarification, the controls right now is not a moratorium that requires a conditional use as opposed to right. there could be some confusion because supervisors kim is considering a moratorium in the south of market. just trying to get the clarity correct. one thing that would be really important for us is not just what we want to see come forward, but how would you use that because right now we are proposing a situation. the proposal on the table is it doesn't matter what the economic circumstances are as you meet these conditions to move forward. would you like to be in a position to annihilate a landmark and there is no structural need or economic need. we need to know, not just what you want to see, but the deliberation is important, what decision making pivot would be because the other notion if

a building is in bad shape you get more. that's the kind of decision, are you going to change the decision based on the condition of the building. and you will be the landmarking or not in terms of the office allocation will go to the planning commission. >> commissioner johnck? >> i'm sensitive to supervisors cohen here and i'm in favor of us trying to be helpful here to this broader social goal appreciating what both richards, commissioner john and wolfram have said about paying attention to our role. i guess you are saying don't right a letter, i was thinking i would be happy to refer to staff to write a general letter about what we've discussed here today and highlighting some of the items and hour we

-- how we are going to use them and decide on and definitely we need to continue this discussion in that. but i would be happy to keep the process rolling here and get some good feedback which i think would be helpful to the supervisors. that would be my recommendation to have them send a letter now generally discussing. >> you mean this is going to be the end of this? >> no. >> no. we are going to consider it further. i'm not offering a motion to establish and ordinance or anything i mean to approve this language so far. i'm just saying, our feedback on this item could be a letter that we continue to discuss how we use it. >> commissioners, if you are willing i think it's beneficial to share your comments at this hearing with the planning commission and they really do value your comments and i think it

helps in your deliberations and they are own comments on the matter. so we could draft in the letter something about this commission holding off on the economic discussion until your next hearing. but at least we've given them everything else to discuss and in that way we have a response to share with you when we come back. >> i think we can even address some comments on the economic issue as well. commissioner pearlman? >> it feels like we are rushing for an arbitrary deadline and there is all this movement and this has to happen and here we have a year moratorium that won't end until july? >> no, for conditional use. >> but it will still come before the planning commission and supervisor cohen is not interested in pinterest

and i see all this rush and commissioner john's and wolfram is saying let's get it right instead of just get it done. >> i don't want you to feel rushed to make a decision about whether or not you make approval of the legislation. i think what we would like to see some formal way for you to be able to share your initial feedback with the planning commission which we have scheduled. i know it may feel like a rush, but the process even after the planning commission is a couple months as well. over in all it's a couple months period. so i don't want you to feel rushed on an approval kegs. i want us to spend some time to get your comments integrated and be able to develop with staff that will actually be usable for you or people sitting in your position. i think it's helpful to have a memorialization and to

come back with specific language for an amended ordinance for you to consider for approval at a later date. >> and we'll establish in a letter. >> commissioner hyland? >> we are talking about two different things. one is if we have a potential landmark before us and we are going to support that designation and the information we use in order to make that analysis. i'm not sure in pass how much to choose to approve a landmark designation. the unintended consequences of that designation can is what we are responding to and this legislation is just saying we are going to limit that unintended consequences. as commissioner's wolfram, we don't know whether this is going to, this is the right appropriate balance

and an allowing a loophole not to spin out of control. we are still going to landmark these buildings if the buildings should be landmarked. so whatever legislation or additional information we put into this legislation, i don't think that's going to change that process or that decision. i think we can come back in a week or two. >> commissioners john's? >> this gets back in a way whether it's proposed whether we would landmark a pristine building. i think the answer to that is if it qualified absolutely yes. in a way, the tail has been wagging the dog here for a while because we got into this because there

were economic incentives built into making it in the eyes of some people less painful to have a landmark property. that at least has always been my evaluation of these incentives, but that's a very different question whether or not the property ought to be landmarked and qualifies and i would really like to focus more on that latter question on whether it qualifies and ought to be and let others work out the sociological desirability of incentives. >> so, if i might, do i hear a motion to continue this item? >> yes. >> a second? >> city clerk: that continuance date would be october 1st? >> well, we are going to continue. i will second we are going to

continue. i don't think we should send a letter? >> yes we are sending a letter. >> fine, i will second the motion. >> thank you. we can call roll. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to continue this matter to october 1st, on that motion, commissioner hyland, yes, commissioner johnck, yes, john's, pearlman, wolfram, commissioner hasz. >> that will place you on your final agendaized item no. 14. your rules and regulations consideration of proposed amendments. so this has been on your agenda several times. you considered it a couple times and had some deliberation and provided you with some direction which has already

been incorporated, the city attorneys office has reviewed those modifications and before you for adoption. >> mr. john's? >> thank you. we have spent considerable time and effort on this. i would like to suggest that two items that i think need to be changed and they are in page four. they deal with the situation of how many votes they need to pass. right now four, i guess 7 b at the top of page 4, says down at the third line, let me see here, a motion of resolution adopted by a majority of all members of commission 4, i would like to change that to simply

say that "resolution adopted by a vote of 4 members of the commission" that makes clear that we always need four votes to pass the substantive motion. there had been a concern raised by me what happened if we only had 5 members of the commission who were occupied seats? in other words say, three or two resigned and/or were not serving and the mayor had not appointed a full commission. i have been adviced by the city attorney that in all cases a substantive motion must be passed by a majority of the commission

chairs. whether occupied or not. this would just make clear that substantive matters require four members voting for them. and down in d, which now says a motion of intent occurs when the commission passes a motion by a majority of all members of the commission. i would just change that to read, "a motion of intent occurs when the commission passes a motion that is contrary to the preliminary recommendations" and that i think is desirable because in b, we will have said that it takes four votes. so that's why i would do that. >> commissioner john's, on that same topic since you are there, if i can just suggest adding the term in subsection b at least four members?

>> well you can put in two unnecessary words but i would say four members. >> yeah, at least four. that's clear. >> well you could say four or more. >> okay. four or more. >> by a vote of four members of the commission. it couldn't be more simpler. >> it's actually not public comment right now. >> we will have public comment in a moment. >> on this matter on the rules and regulation. commissioner johnck? >> i can't believe i think i found something after commissioner john's a gust review of this topic, but i think on page 7, under submittals. i would like to see a photo.

it doesn't say anything that part of the submittal should be a photograph. i know we are getting a lot of the cat x's in the mail and some have photos and some not. but, i mean that's another topic. i think there should be a photograph unless i'm missing something in the submittals. >> a clear recent photo. >> yeah. >> certainly under subsection b. >> right. under submittal b. >> we can certainly add that. >> okay. great. >> seeing no other comments right now, we'll open up public comment regarding rules and regulations. any member of the public wish to talk about rules and regulations, no, we'll close public comment and come back to commission. >> mr. frye and i have been working on

a session not of the rules and recognizes, -- regulations that will expand on this section a little bit. we'll give pointers to people for how they can effectively organize and make their presentation and those helpful hints will refer to the appendix that i just wanted to make sure that everybody realized that we have not approached the folks on getting the presentation. >> do we have a motion? >> i so move that we adopt the rules and regulations with the amendments the people have proposed including yours. >> i second it. >> thank you. >> this you commissioners, on

that motion to adopt the new rules and regulations as amended today, commissioner highland, commissioner johnck, commissioner john's, commissioner pearlman, commissioner wolfram. commissioner hasz. thank you, i appreciate you putting closure to this. >> thank you, with that i adjourn this meeting. >> [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

>> the meeting is called to order, at 5:34, i would like to thank you for making the meeting possible and for members of the public if you could remember to turn off your cell phone and with that, mr. president, i shall call, do roll call. >> yes. >> and commissioner steve adams? >> here. >> dooley. >> here. >> dwight.

>> here. >> ortiz-cartagena is absent. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian? >> here. >> and commissioner riley. >> and commissioner white. >> here. >> mr. president, you have a quorum. >> next item please. >> before we can move into the minutes commissioners i want to let you know that there was a photo copying error with the agenda and so the second page is missing but what is missing is just the president's report, or the vice president's report, the standard items so, the president has a full copy, and we will read you through that. >> and all right, item number 2, is general public comment, and allows the members of the public to comment on matters within the commissioner's purview and considers new items for the future consideration. >> do we have any members of the public that would like to make a comment?

>> seeing number. >> item three is approval of the july, 14th, meeting minutes. >> i move. >> that was commissioner riley? >> yes. >> moved. >> and they have been approved. >> item four is discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors, and on file number 1 40724, nighttime entertainment and general uses greater than 250,000 square feet in the western soma area, this ordinance is amending the planning code to delete the prohiks against the uses exceeding 25,000 square feet in the commercial district to authorize, a entertainment use, in the mixed use and office zoning district in 200 feet of any property with the

residential onclave or mixed district. and where nighttime entertainment use exists within five years prior to the application to reestablish the use, and affirming the planning department's >> unfortunately, april had a scheduling issue and was not able to be here, and we chose just to hear the item and i sent you a legislative review and so i will, and this is, and this will just give a brief, and also it does, also the middle school need to expand,

and it is dealing with the entities that are in the neighborhood and expanding and moving and moving into a space needing larger than 25,000 square feet. and so for 25,000 square feet, and this is basically, like she said two entities here, and the procidio middle school, which means, to ex-expand and then the nightclub at 298, 11th street is right on the corner of 11th and fulsome which is if

they would like to use it for the shows and if we would like to lose this for the develop sxment this is something that we can use and help with the community and i am all for this piece of legislation. >> and it is important to note that supervisor kim has narrowly tailored this so it is existing businesses that are going into larger spaces so these are entities that already existed and operated, and in the neighborhood, and in the area is familiar with. >> right. >> and especially for the tshack will be able to expand and it has a greater benefit not only for in the legislative review. for more performers, and more individuals being able to work, you know, to service the performances, and you know, sound people, and light people and but it also is going to

allow touring drag shows to be able to come and come to san francisco. and have a venue to perform in, which, i think has not fully been there from what i understand. >> yes. >> commissioner, riley? >> yes. is this going to be specific to this location? >> yes. >> item four?

>> public comment. >> public comment is closed, move to approve. >> second. >> and going to take a roll call. >> yes. commissioner adams? >> yes. >> dooley. >> yes. >> dwight. >> yes. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> yes. >> and riley >> yes. >> and white. >> yes. >> and ortiz-cartagena is absent. >> so mr. president, that moves forward with your recommendation 6-0. >> thank you. >> and i am excited. >> number five, this is a presentation and discussion on the nfl's business contact program. and for the san francisco bay area, super bowl 50 and i would like to the presentation is by jason of the vp of community relations for the san francisco bay area super bowl, 50, i

can't speak tonight, the host committee and, so welcome, and sfgov tv and at some moment, >> thank you. >> and thank you for inviting us and the commissioners for having the super bowl host here in evening and also want to acknowledge the colleagues and for, the communication and marketing, for the host committee, and as we take questions, at the appropriate time and i might call upon her. as you know, the big game is coming to the region on february the 7th, 2016 and the region is proud to be hosting the 50th celebration and playing on the super bowl, and the first was played in california, and it was the 50th and the golden anniversary and we are here and excited that it is here in the state and i am

going to do a brief presentation that will just take a few slides and then, open to any discussion. >> so go ahead. >> yes. >> great. >> so, the host committee and i just wanted to say about who it is as an organization and we are a 501 c6, non-profit and similar to a chamber of commerce or a commissioner or a center, we are working in partnership, with obviously the bay area, and public official and corporations and the communities, and of course, the nfl, to host, an excellent super bowl, and attend the games, or attend events, and of course, engage the bay area, and community, in the run up to the super bowl, 50 and this includes managing all aspects of the planning and the production and the force of rule, 50, securing the funding necessary to host the super bowl, 50, and insuring that i think that this is important for the content that we will discuss tonight that the fabric

is wo ven into the super bowl experience for the entire bay area region and provides opportunities for the communities to actively participate. and one of the reasons, that we are doing this super bowl and clearly a reason that i am here for you tonight is the business connect program and this is an nfl supplier, and its intent is to engage the local and diverse community in the procurement opportunities related to super bowl, so we as a host committee are responsible for helping the nfl execute locally and we work with the nfl, and again, the key public and private particular holders to connect our local business and diverse business community to the super bowl, procurement and networking and businesses development opportunities.