it as it is originally proposed with the confidence that staff will look at future proposals and if this met the criteria it will go forward if not we'll deny it and they'll be an appeal process for the sponsor to go forward to have it approved by the planning commission or the board of supervisors i think commissioner hillis. >> i think given this is allowed in an industrial area and not require a fee in this adjacent area and maybe i'm not comfortable requiring the if upper recommending that because we have not looked this in detail so maybe we require or make a recommendation that the

board look at the possible of having a cu. >> commissioner richards. >> yeah. my concern is not with the manufacturing but the tasting i've not driven counsel the corridor those are things that need to be looked at in terms of the tasting not the manufacturing. >> to answer that question when it was rezoned with the lastly pdr district this was a district included pdr that stance for the buffer that buffers the industrial use i don't believe that industrial use t is allowed. >> it addresses my concern. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i'd be willing to amend it to the board of supervisors looking at it i definitely my intent was

knowing the board of supervisors rule they change the legislation, however, he wanted to enter that conversation i felt it was left out altogether and no one would talk about that if you have a cu process if things become problematic down the road where breweries are competing with the pdr type of spaces the only way to adjust is to change the planning code changing legislation for the cu process we don't have to approve cruz until we see a great project i wanted it to be a discussion to i'd be willing to amend my motion to what we're approving but the board of supervisors consider a cu process. >> accepted. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, we have a motion and a second to death penalty a recommendation for approval and recommending that the board of supervisors consider the cu process for type of 23 abc process on that motion commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu snoemdz unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 10 planning code related to the consolidations reorganize article two and make changes to simplify code changes that is a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon aaron starr acting manager this is an

ordnance that easements the planning code to reorganize article two for rezoning tables to update and clarify and simplify it's code language i presented this effort to the commission on june 30th, 2013, at a public hearing in an effort to introduce the concept to the planning commission as well as the public to get feedback on the process on july 24th of this year the commission voted inform uphold it they have two outreach meetings and internally by two planner and since staff

initiation staff has made modifications from the feedback it is in our packet an exhibit g we are asking you recommend approval with the modifications to the board of supervisors idea to reorganize article 2 has been around since 1980s when seven and eight were add article seven and eight were organized differently and have their own use dings very the zoning tables that list the zoning standards in one table for a single source that outlines the controls for each zoning will district article 2 on the other hand, use what we call a use and whether or not their permits or not permitted and the use of the definition that makes tables

long and requires that some dignifies repeat several times we believe that the zoning tables are a friendly way to have data and to remove the tables in article two and roman numeral n them with tables 7 and 8 to one section to have the zoning districts referenced one that has dignifies currently the definitions are found in 4 places one for our district and c m and pdr district and one set for neighborhood and one set for south of market and chinatown district the ordinances is before you as a phase one and if approved by the board of

supervisors it will conform to the language let me stress it was staffs intention to make a few substantive changes as possible and all the changes that have the biggest impact in the case recorded there's no change to use controls in our districts let me repeat that there's no changes to uses allowed in our districts most of the use consolidations impact south of market district and i've idle those this is extremely large over 4 hundred pages and not making is changes to the land use committee that have not been voted the goals to reorganize article 2 it is easier to use and putting them into one section of the code and in the last few days the

department has received several memos i think this is a misunderstanding such south of market and pdr districts and they can take the form of dwelling or group housing yet if you don't read the definition of student housing you won't know this now you can look at the district and see what is and not pilot without having guesswork all the uses in the code are accounted for in the district before they were not that concludes my remarks i'm happy to take our questions. >> thank you we'll open for. when your name is called, please step forward and line up on the screen side of the room

(calling names) >> the first speaker can come to the podium. >> i'm going to opening the discussion. >> can you speak up, please. >> sorry in 1972 when i entered the from a of the planning commission the planning department i was admonished by the planning staff remember process and procure process and procure a that's what i have the basis of my comments in 1972 you had an ordinance to reclassify all 13 maps of the city heights and

deepest we went through the process and it was approved 20 years later 1990 and 96 you gave us the ac c it was a disaster we didn't like it the mayor set aside a separate room and set an aide for us and we went item by item everybody knew across the city was in the r.c. a and it was tables at the planning commission hearing he then now here we go again 20 years later this is now 40 years later we have this proposal which you title planning code text change that signals to me this is something that has to be invited citywide citywide has to work on this it hadn't occurred

and form of it's complicated first of all, the department this be commended it is a good idea to simplify it and put it in code and the planner is to be accommodated he's duplicate a great job, however, it is not over the only wow. way to solve is two columns one column of existing code and what's proposed so very few people are aware of any of this this isn't right what our planning it effects everyone in the city whether a renter or non-renter everybody will be effected so i think it behooves us all to be careful the process and procedure as they admonish me in

the early days thank you. >> hello commissioners and commissioner president wu my name is jeff wood i'm a member of the cal hallow board association and i've a couple of comments on the article two amendments certainly meantime everybody wants to simplify documents at city hall that's a great idea we fully support that but we think it is kind of confusing trying to create or changed dings and move them into a table some of them are complicated and their various height and depth conditions and restrictions depending on what neighborhood

in the city you're in residential and other districts so we think there should be an asterick in bold to go with this table it says see section for details so there you know you can't put a definition in a table so the beauty of having a table it simplifies but brief so you should go somewhere else so the planners are not confused and architects are not confused trying to design within the code other well, the other thing that really goes along with there are in cal hallow we have design

planning in 2004 no mention of those those need to be considered certainly in our neighborly and i'm sure other guidelines and other residential districts in the city that should be that xhunld and they must be on their own references should be included so 23 it needs to be continued to get it straight we think that done thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the chair for the coalition of latino housing committee we first heard about this as aaron starr said last year

and when i first heard there was two community meetings and the attendance was bnlt 2 people and 3 people people doesn't understand the magnitude of the changes those are not rearrangements to make it easy for people it complicated the issues mr. star said none of the otherwise have been changed but the neighborhood a gentleman has been working on this for a long time and many, many points i have several points so aaron starr agreed and met with us in our land use commission and some issues he said he would make changes and other issues he said he'll get to the department and

discuss them and changes maybe forthcoming, however, at this point in time after the latest revisions their alarming issues that the neighborhoods have there's a bulletin that was sent out by rose high on a hill it calls to me son and there's a number of items do you want the following 16 in our neighborhood as a permit right of use next door to you that means all of you folks you'll losses our rights to approve or disapprove one students housing and society hours and housing for the disorders and group housing and medical and institution number 6 hotel or hostile and 7 hospital and medical centers 8 residential care facilities and 9 philanthropic facilities and 10 childcare facilities and 11

schools and 12 dormitories and medical cannabis and 14 community slash neighborhood centers and 16 recreational facilities and know the neighborhoods are really concerned about what the rights of the orders approved permitted use and what was discretionary review and those issues have not been looked at we ask do the department to clarify and the department refused to send anyone to discuss any changes so we're asking for continuance this is very important for the neighborhoods thank you. >> >> next speaker. >> richard lee i'm the board

of patrick heights homeowners association and retired attorney and my speciality was land use planning for several years i'm not gagging going to repeat anything but i've spent four days going through this there are a number of areas that are ambiguous that need explanation and you allow a time for that to happen there are not just a question of unknown substantive questions there are dozens of substantive changes throughout the document you should have a procedure that those of us who are concerned can sit down with the staff and work through those i urge you to not pass it today but pass it back to the staff to have a period of time to go through the very context much of

it is very, very clear but significant portions are neither clear nor appropriate i urge you >> next speaker and i'll call for names (calling names). >> commissioners and commissioner president wu i'm greg scott the president of the patrick heights association we have the concerns of the previously voiced to say this is a substantive changes are disingenuous they've not had the public process this is changing the zoning in the city and should have a citywide notice because changing what the zoning means for the entire city and the 16 uses that the gentleman went through are previously

things are principally permitted this is substantively changed and the process and discussion has not happened i was at the meeting are aaron starr and the coalition for san francisco land use commission and no follow-up from the meeting it's frustrating this needs continuance and the public niece to understand what this all means it is not something that has a substantive impact of what it means to the city. >> next speaker >> good afternoon. i'm paul weber a director of telegraph hill association rather than going into the condiments that people have spoken about it has to be clear there needs to be more neighborhood input open this huge huge piece of legislation

the staff has taken a pretty good crack at it i attended one meeting in which comments were made to staff and no follows up in terms of upgraded changes without explanation this is not the right way to approach all the neighborhoods to say here's our new game plan for neighborhood planning so i urge you on behalf of my organization and the others who are speaking here to please continue this and set up an incredible outreach of meetings for the various neighborhoods thank you very much. > next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners tom with the liveable city before you today is an undertaking that should have been undertaken many, many years

ago we've got the winchester house it's very, very hard to make sense of and it is a bad thing not only a bad thing kind of a compulsive thing it's a bad thing for democracy and if they can't be easily understand or interpreted we've made planning the provision of those experts and those small priesthood understands how this fits together this piece helps to solve that it organs the article 2 and the organization and the way they've been organized the old way of scattered the controls across differences sections a confusing your staff b did an outstanding job they

have a complex task they moved the code into new sections without changing they didn't want to make my changes they have to, of course, cooperate with pending owners so there are ordinances that are approved moving through the process you don't want to wipeout any of the issuance so that coordination with the other ones in the pipeline are tasks they've done a great job with the outreach and the hearing this is our third hearing on this a draft of the ordinance available they've made themselves they'll be e available to the neighborhoods so they've explained to the folks here's why we're doing this this way so with that, we'll urge you to to move forward with this today it is the third hearing it will be

going to fobdz and the danger with detailing codes change so if other sections get impede e amended in the time this ordinance o ordinance setting before you or even when it comes back to you so this is going to make sure that the new ordinances and amendments b will fit into the new structure and not into the old one to get integrated thank you for showing the leadership in terms of making it more legible. >> next speaker >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is george

twice president of the western central council and current vice president for the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods frankly, we're concerned about how the process it moving forward as was stated earlier in our attempts to outreach you had two or three people representing the west side i can tell you what certainty there's no one that knows about what's happening today there easily three or four hundred thousand people on the west side who don't have a clue what you're doing so when tom says you know this process would modify has reached a lot of people i came here today because we've already been stuck with

secondary units through a process with supervisor david chiu and now we're stuck with airbnb to a process with supervisor david chiu and now we're sitting here and we're working at the gigantic article two and it's hard for someone 0 like myself not well ground to understand everything and i do so many constrictions of the neighborhoods and the two people you've spoken to can't explain the krishgdz we need for people to meet with the west side to explain what our doing and trying to do and what you find this is necessary to do and it looks like you're trying to

marginalize the neighborhood that's not a bad thing i'm saying but i feel at this time it needed to move forward much farther because no one knows what you're doing and i think it would be disingenuous for you to continue thank you very much. >> next speaker >> i'm ilene are the park side action committee speak is also a mercedes benz member of the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods the commission has a file from the speak about this i brought in addition copies today speak has requested an additional continuance based on a timing issue there was a 6 week period when the members of the public had questions and

concerns regarding the article revisions you, however, the staff planner was out of the country and way unavailable if this item is heard today speak a urging the article to be sent. >> bob: back to remove language such as the term open afternoon average and you have the copy from the action >> thank you. next speaker, please (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm rose high on a hill it calls to me son a member of the coalition of san francisco and the member of the park i'm going to talk fast because the pages are huge this article two is too many pages compared to 13 hundred pages lose building codes and we

looked at this after the article was posted it will implement what is going to be passed and one importantly or more is general and article two where the rubber meets the road whatever the phrase is that phrase is where it is going to hit because oil you all the uses are in article 2 so, now we're blending the reason the gentleman mentioned articles seven and eight articles you've got to mixed use defines and article 2 going together and george is right about the homogenization of san francisco and now articles inside for instance, something in a table on page one hundred 28 look like codes 206 it is reserved not

defined oh, great i have another one hundred and a half it/should have all the relevant sections that apply and sections that height and bulk that's not found in the proposed protective packet how do you approve that. >> you have residential lunld into residential and commercial and some uses that are principally permitted in some places now not right now and now principally permitted and cu things that's changed well, you know just to be clear 52 i want to say i'd hand over the codes i like to go into the weeds i'm not talking about the medical cannabis