i know it will get appealed to this board if it gets approved by the planning commission. we have a process i continue to support and it works and with all respect to the chairman, and i do respect the fact that you are responding to your neighborhood and their needs, i totally respect that. but i respectfully disagree and cannot support this legislation. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. thank you for your comments and can i just urge us -- i will move that we move this forward with a recommendation to the full board as a committee report for july 26th, 2011. can we have a role call? >> on the motion to refer this recommended as a committee report -- [roll-call] mr. scher, we have 2ayes and one no. how item #8 -- treating it limited live performance permit and specifying license fees and hearing requirements. supervisor mar: supervisor mirkarimi is here, the author. >> as you know, we held over this legislation because of some modest amendments we made last week here in this committee and do to process the required us to hold over this legislation. i would like to thi

the planning commission recommended the offer agree with them, that the supervisor on behalf of the planning commission should thank for including the following amendments. the first is to clarify the difference between mayor as housing so that there is not a duplication. second, the plan should be within a prescribed distance from the principal project so that our commission may offer exemptions within three-quarters of a mile. no. 3, the principal project should require 40% of the total developable area. only two -- only qualifying households and dedicated sites have the capacity for 40% of the units that would have been developed. hopefully that is clear. providing an opportunity for multiple project sponsors to participate in the rededication of land, getting together to go after a larger property. lastly, clarifying the process to determine whether the proposal meets the requirements. second, they would like a list of required components for the land dedication agreements. the planning commission would make the final rule on the agreement. they would also require the project sponsor to

the planning commission was considering the third story addition independent of a rear addition. i do not believe plans were ever drawn up for a rear addition, although i could be corrected. president goh: thank you. >> the staff asked the sponsor to drop plans for putting up two stories, i believe, into the rear yard, and doing a much smaller top floor. the client said that is not what the neighbors want. we are here to work with the neighbors. president goh: thank you. comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i will start. having worked with the planning department and planning commission for 30-odd years, i do not think they are anti- family. and to a certain degree, some of their statements i would agree with. i would agree that the overall profile as proposed by the appellant could be fit in, even with the more extensive setbacks. the question here is, in terms of the rdg's, they are an element -- they are an amalgamation of a lot of experiences the planning department has had dealing with in this case, and prominently related to, a vertical extension and how to mitigate t

the planning department and planning commission have done a lot of planning in this area, as i mentioned. i mentioned. there is a plan

the planning department and planning commission have done a lot of planning in this area, as i mentioned. there is a plan for a new downtown residential neighborhood on the south side of this area. i believe the number is 5000 to

the planning commission makes a decision, and that can then be appealed to this board. as president of the neighborhood association, i helped lead the charge against particular chain stores coming into the store because they were inappropriate, and we beat both of them at the planning commission. the process does work. with the signatures that have been collected, and it looks like they are largely from the richmond, that does not bode well for them thursday night at the planning commission, and i believe we should allow the process to work, and i guarantee you this will not be the last micro chain store that we will see, because we will see on a very ad hoc basis in particular chain store coming into a particular neighborhood, and instead of letting the planning process work itself out, we will see the planning process ban this particular type of chain store in this particular neighborhood with the absolute best of intentions, but i think we will end up with an even more convoluted planning code and a hodgepodge of chain store regulation, so i will be voting against th

we had to take it to the planning commission for it to change. they did a very simple thing, they closed the door by this outdoor smoking area that they then closed in december and that is why they came into compliance with the conditions of approval. the issue of the penalties was discussed last november with a meeting with supervisor dufty about the project and we informed them that they can come to see board of appeals to request jurisdiction. they failed to file an appeal. that advice was given in november of last year. they did not file the request until april of this year. then they missed their first hearing on this. it seemed like it was an error on when they put the item in their calendar. we think that the violation had gone on for far too long. they were forced by the planning commission to come into compliance and they finally did so but in the past few months we have uncovered more issues. sound was continuing to be an issue and we sent an inspector out in july. they observed this smoking area which was supposed to be closed. this wo

other comments made at the planning commission were important -- why didn't we go further and make it work comprehensive as an overall effort to look at other industries like the hardware stores or office supply stores and i will just say we did our best to make this a limited measure that could go further, but we look forward to working with the planning commissioners and others to look more carefully at how we protect the small business climate in all our neighborhoods. with that, i would like to introduce and mary rodgers from planning to brief us on this -- and mary e. rogers from planning to brief us on this and -- >> i did go over the recommendations in full last week and i'm happy to review them again this week. to summarize, they supported nearly all of the recommended modifications and the content of the ordinance, but for the prohibition on formula retail, that was the only area where they read -- or the difference -- where they differed. this supports the restaurant controls and is more easy on restaurants. it should take less process to get a restaurant when this passes. a

if there is any comment or suggestion you want to direct to the planning commission as they hear it on august 4 -- will the legislation be ready by august 4? >> we present a recommendation to the commission. they take that recommendation or do not. the supervisor can opt to put that into the legislation. that is when it would be officially drafted, after their boat. president o'brien: i would like to go on record for thinking supervisor -- thanking supervisor mirkarimi for this thought process. i think we should send a positive statement back to the supervisor's office of this hearing, an appreciation of you being here and presenting. if somebody would like to put something out here. >> could we do it in the form of a letter of support for the legislation to the planning department? >> you could ask staff to direct a letter of support for the direction. but, again, the official piece of legislation with the changes has not been drafted yet. >> i think you have directed comments and made statements to aaron starr, and we can pass that on to supervisor mirkarimi. you are welcome to direc

we are flying. >> how the district plan was published in november of 2009 pitahaya you were all on the commission at that time. we sent you a copy so you have that now. the area covered by the draft plan is essentially the southern part of the financial district. is on the west right up against the district. the plan area includes all of the redevelopment area. however, the district plan is not making any changes to the land use or-developer for similar developer of the redevelopment area that is a the jurisdiction of the redevelopment area. it is under the jurisdiction of the planning department and planning commission. the transit center is at the heart of the district area. it is its own project. under the jurisdiction of the trans a joint powers authority, is essentially the heart of the district. there are certain public parcels in the area. a couple of key properties. we will talk about that in just a second. the objective of the district plan, the first is environmentally responsible land use. and have an appropriately in the u.s. response in downtown. -- and appropriately and the u.s. res

the planning commission is going to be hearing this on august 4. we will have another opportunity to read here it after the commission meeting for the official recommendation or the official response from the small business commission. that said, you can direct staff, if there are any comments to pass on to the planning commission, directed to aaron starr -- direct it to aaron starr, or you can direct us to -- to write some recommendations for the planning department to consider. >> hello. i am with the planning department's staff. i am going to present to you the proposed legislation introduced as part of the planning department recommendation. i will start by going over current recommendations and finally the staff proposal. currently, there are 13 definitions for eating and drinking uses in the planning code. mirkarimi's legislation would modify three of those -- retail coffee stores, self-service restaurants, and large fast food restaurants. the fast food restaurants are currently differentiated by the total square footage and number of seats,

the department is recommending the planning commission approved the additional use authorization as revised in the august 4 draft motion to modify conditions 20, 21, and 29 to allow fulfillment of the planning code section by providing a combination of on- site bmr it is and payment of the affordable housing the. commissioner olague: 80. project sponsor? -- thank you. project sponsor? >> on behalf of the three project sponsors, i wanted to indicate that we are also in agreement with the hybrid resolution described to you. partners would be willing to pre-paid a good portion of the affordable housing fee. that would allow the open house project to move forward with the ground lease payment at that time so the entire payment could be made together. both projects could move forward together. that is a prerequisite for moving forward. we're very pleased the consensus has been reached. we're thankful for the neighborhood and community organizations that came together with the mayor's office of housing and my clients to work this out. we're pleased with the consensus that has been reached. i do w

with these conditions in case come out -- in place, the planning commission unanimously approved this patio in january. the brickyard has taken more measures to address noise than any other businesses in union street. we've tried to work within the existing physical structure because changing it would result in construction costs and cause further financial strain on a struggling business. noise ordinance compliance is not dependent on physical structure in place. it also requires responsible management. if it were physical structures alone, no venue would be allowed to have windows or doors that open to the street. giving the existing structure with the conditions in place, there will be no violations of the noise ordinance. we are responsible business owners and neighbors. we do not recommend additional changes. in closing, thank you, we do not recommend changes for the physical structure. we request the board denied the appeal and upheld the conditions imposed by the planning commission. vice president garcia: i have a question for your acoustical expert, mr. solomon. there seems t

the planning commission is in the process of trying to form a subcommittee. there are a number of people coming from small businesses or others who are interested to discuss this issue together with the public and the board further so we can indeed wrap some new meaning along all of this in 72 time. the third point i would like to make -- all of this in due time. the third point i would like to make is that your pushed back at lot of fuel to the fire and a lot of credibility because we do need your help leigh order to have a sounding change. this is a comment on the architect forms to make choices about food, the neighborhood makes choices about banking. san francisco has a very clearly delineated financial district in which all larger banks have a very well appointed setting for doing their major business. the way we all bank -- and i'm not going to ask for hands, but most of us do it on phones and many of us do it at home of a computer and what we have a bank, we have a public transportation network that gets us right downtown to our financial institutions

you're forced to go to the planning commission under the threat of the revocation. this was not a very hard compliance. it was pulling the garage door down. i know the people that work in the business want to frame it in terms of what it's going to do to the business. that's something you need to consider. i also want to frame it in terms of what the business did to the neighborhood as well as, by reducing or eliminating the fine to a great extent would do to the conditional use process. i think we need a process that has integrity. the project sponsor signed the conditional use application thing that if he didn't comply, there would be a $250 a day penalty, which there was. i think any substantial fine will send a message to businesses that they can't break their promises, keep getting second and third chances. even with that equipment, nothing happens and we're forced to fight these things. i think eliminating the fine or reducing the substantially will hurt the integrity of the process and some substantial fine needs to be imposed. thank you. >> thank you. next s

the planning department and planning commission have done a lot of planning in this area, as i mentioned. there is a plan for a new downtown residential neighborhood on the south side of this area. i believe the number is 5000 to 7000 new units. given all the dialogue surrounding regional smart growth issues, it is a higher priority to take advantage of our corps regional transit facilities, with close proximity to barton and metro region art -- to bart and metro. we do not have other parts of the city where we could concentrate other jobs in proximity to regional transit. the plan will consolidate a ratio of commercial space to non-commercial space. we are not concerned about small lots, but will make sure on the very large lots that the large buildings have significant commercial space. you can see the numbers of what the plan area would build up to over a long time, 20 years or so. over 9 million square feet of additional space, 2/3 of which would be office space, a little over 6 million square feet -- this does still leave room for other uses. we do anticipate over 1300 new housing u

everyone has been fully appraised of this project moving forward. >> with our commission, with planning commission approval, what other approval is necessary? >> that is going to be the construction process that steve will be bringing forward to you at the next meeting. this is the port commission, basically saying that they approved to go ahead because the implication steps in the process would work that needs to be done with that the army to coordinate the demolition of pure 36 will be construction of the plaza itself. there is a lot of technical detail that needs to be coordinated between those efforts. it has been under way, but with action today we would be able to pull through and meet that schedule for delivering in time for next summer. thank you. >> it might be premature to ask about this. it might be something for the army corps, but i have a question about the existing tiles that are there. in terms of the reduction of the significant impacts, it seems that a lot of it relates to driving. are there any opportunities to preserve what exists, as much as what is being done at the exploreat

this was about the e.i.r., which is broader than the planning commission here. your comments were not wasted in any way. but i think in the future there will probably be your opportunities will lie more with the other jurisdictions, rather than the planning commission. i would just like to point that out. i will have some comments in written form of my own to submit later. >> i just wanted to echo what the -- i really appreciate the comments that we heard today and definitely i think there were important points made in regards to the inadequates' of the e.i.r. and certain points that need to be further analyzed and recreational use of aquatic park. jennifer clary mentioned the distance of impacts and a couple of other items that she mentioned here. i think that is important for us to analyze further. ultimately we will not be having much jurisdiction over the final project. so i think that it is important for the public to be informed and the commission here of our ultimate role as it relates to america's cup. and i think ultimately it is just the certification

would you tell me, when something comes before the planning commission that noise is an issue, how you establish an ambient noise issues? does your department rely on the entertainment commission, or do you have something? >> the noise ordinance is contained in chapter 29 of the police code, and it establishes different agencies have different responsibilities, and it is spread across the department of public health, the department of public works, entertainment commission, the police department. when we received complaints relating to noise related to an issue such as this, we referred to inspectors who have the appropriate the equipment to take measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance during -- noise ordinance. >> did anyone go into questions about how they established the basis? >> the questions that were not raised to my knowledge, we did only received this week a report from the appellants that contains the sound engineer report, so we have not had time to review that with the entertainment commission, since we came in i believe on monday, so we have not had time to

it seems to me it might be a health commission priority as opposed to planning. >> yes. >> we are on the regular calendar. item 12, request for conditional you thought -- use authorization. >> i am mary woods. this is a proposal to convert a vacant and retail spaces that used to be they mervyns' and good guy's shopping mall. this includes 6000 square feet with the potential to add 14,000 square feet of vacant spaces become available for 120,000 square feet. there are existing parking spaces at the site. 600 regular vehicles bases and five freeloading spaces. there are 28 bicycle parking space oncs. the product would -- project would add 14 bicycles basis for a total of 42. there are entrances on geary and others for access. this includes a use size of to 120,000 square feet. the department approves -- recommends approval with conditions. staff has received two letters in support of the project. this concludes my summary of the project. if you have questions, i will be here to answer. thank you. project sponsor. >> good evening. i am jim ruben, working with the owners of the shopping

the 55 within a project was approved by the planning commission 3.5 years ago. the project included two housing components, a marker 8 component of units that would be constructed and located in new buildings and in the renovated woods. the other component was unaffordable senior housing component of approximately 110 units welcoming to the senior lgbt households to be developed by mercy housing. under the original approval, 15% of the market rate units were to be constructed as on-site, below market units. the project before the commission today proposes to modify conditions 20, 21, and 29 of the planning commission motion to allow a hybrid exclusionary -- inclusionary portion. the modification would allow the provision of approximately 32 units and a maximum of approximately 50 units of the requirement as on-site units. if less than 15% are provided, payment by the developer of the market rate component of the affordable housing feet of up to approximately dollars and 6.3 million to comply with the planning code sections 4 and 5. this change from the 50 units