we have not yet presented the sud or conditional use appeal. i will present more when you are ready for that. supervisor chu: thank you. president chiu: any further questions? >> i will continue with the presentation. this is our response to a conditional use appeal. the conditional use appeal is perhaps the central question that is before the board today. is this project necessary and desirable for the community? in this case, we are using an existing building for needed housing and services for transitional-aged youths. it is hard to imagine a more necessary or desirable project. while the appellate has raised numerous issues the we have addressed in our materials, i am going to focus on three categories for you today. the process, the project, and the general plan. let's talk about the process first. the appellate argues that proper procedures were not followed, but that is not the case. the department has followed all procedures for noticing and public hearings for these environments. the prosecutor has above the value of this project at ev

present -- set a precedent for other sud's is speculative. other reasonable developments should be considered in a ceqa analysis. contrary to the appellants assertions, the project is not part of a larger project and is not peacemealing. this refers to the breaking down of a development into multiple developments in order to avoid review. the project at 3155 scott street is an entirely separate and independent of the 2009 housing element and and and other projects proposed. p the project is. iecemealing of a greater project. the fmnd analysis of resources and hazardous materials -- all of these were analyzed in the fmnd. the appellate has provided no substantial evidence to support their claims to the contrary. finally, before i conclude, i would like to a knowledge the public testimony to that. it is clear from the speakers that there is a great deal of concern regarding the project. i would like to thank the speakers for their testimony and everyone for coming out to speak to something that is very important to them. i would especially know

there has been discussions about the need to possibly change or make changes to the sud. we want to be sensitive to that this came at a community process during a time there was a lot of concern about alcohol usage and its impact to the local community and public health. we want to undertake a discussion like that with the full committee process and betting. this is a case where there was an active project that is consideration for this site in the special use district. we wanted to be able to support a recreational use in the area. in speaking with some of the project sponsors about their project, and i believe the proprietors of the business are here today, we emphasize the need to reach out to the community in terms of being able to address -- there is a lack of basis for use in the community and reaching out to the community how this potential bowling alley, which i spent a lot of time in a bowling alley myself could be possible for the use, so they might describe in their public comments some of the outreach they have done to the local community. some of the other th

this means that there should be one ordinance, not a variety of sud's. on this basis, a request that the supervisors rescind it. supervisor wiener: is it your position that an sud can't be sponsored before ceqa certification? the mere introduction of an sud or zoning legislation can't be introduced or co-sponsored before sequence -- ceqa? >> because it has six sponsors, it is basically a done deal. supervisor wiener: if i introduce an sud and my colleagues add their name as a co-sponsor, in your mind, that would be invalid? >> it creates the impression of city support prior to the completion of the ceqa analysis. under the factors, i believe this would show the kind of bureaucratic and financial momentum in conjunction with the fact that the mayor's office of housing -- it subverts the sceqa process. supervisor wiener: supervisors can vote on the process once it has happened. we have seen that before. you are not signing in blood that you are voting for it. >> you would be in a better position to ansewer that than i. i don't dispute the lack of a rule, i

it is the only alcohol sud with ways to transfer liquor licenses. therefore, there's no means to add conditions of approval for establishments that are permitted to sell and serve alcohol. but that is not addressed in this ordinance, and i wanted to point out that the department and commission were supportive of expanding the discussion in the future ordinance. thank you very much. i am a available for questions. supervisor mar: supervisor wiener has a question. >> thank you. there is another bowling alley opening as well, lucky strikes on king street, across from the 18th tee ball park. that was not in the special use district, so there were a lot to come in with a liquor license and restaurant. to address your question on its the roxy theater, i was able to get some answers. what they're proposing for their liquor licenses to serve just beer and wine. no hard liquor, and as for the last show of the night, which will be 21 and over. but they are aware of shows that folks under 21 go to, and they tend to be music documentaries and music festival sho

we're looking at this as a continuation of the existing sud. it will be a smaller area tailored to the commercial zone. we have been working very closely with mr. lord to go through and one of those marvelous charts, and i believe the draft is in your packet as well, that details what uses will be allowed and what we are planning to do there. one significant factor is in the ncd, we're looking for an increase in residential density. we do take seriously that the city and the region has growth pressures, and we're proposing to allow a 1-400 ratio in the neighborhood commercial district for residential. we believe that, with unit mix requirements and other basic limits on residential buildings, that this will not cause a decline in the housing stock that is available, but it will allow folks like young people who are coming in for their first home and independent seniors who want a smaller home to find housing of that nature in japantown. we also have the pressure of trying to find homes for families, which requires a larger footprint. so we're t

like valencia wholefoods, if they want to sell organic beer or wine, they cannot do it because of the sud. it also undermines job creation by bringing in new businesses. honestly, it is great that we're doing this, but this bowling alley should not have had to gone through this process to begin with and making a special exemption from the sud. a gesture not have had to do that. it undermines entertainment and nightlife. it undermines bringing new, creative uses and to the mission and, new kinds of businesses that we did not anticipate in 1996 when we passed this brought and inflexible sud. it also encourages and freezes in time some very bad uses, some of the corner package liquor stores better their, and no one else can make use of this liquor licenses, so those stores remain there. so some of the liquor light that folks were trying to get rid of are now perversely encouraged. this is a good start, and i am very supportive, but i will continue to advocate for a repeal of the sud, and a look forward to the continuing conversations. supervisor cohen: thank you. he took a couple of my talki

nothing in the conditional use authorization makes a contingent upon an sud. next, the city's special use district ordinance is improper methods to propagate california codes based on property requirements. density bonus requirements require the city to adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with the density bonus law will be implemented. the city has not adopted an ordinance. if it did, it would go to some of supervisor wiener's concerns about how the process should proceed to continue and approved low-income housing. instead, the city passes and ad hoc ordinance under special use district ordinance to allow density bonuses. arguably, the city must pass an sud to comply with the density bonus requirements of state law. the city is in an untenable situation. if the city did pass an ordinance, that would comprehensively deal with the density bonus requirements, you would have a consistent and transparent application of the regulation. hear, there it -- here, there is no transparency, it is not consistent, and there is no way for the neighbors to under

the sud founder does not necessarily correlate with the location of resources listed on the inventory, so there for a change in the boundary as it relates to this inventory will be needed. finally, the subcommittee discussed the idea of a proposed community board, which would be an advisory to the planning commission. this subcommittee will continue to refine its inventory and resources and work with staff to integrate these social heritage district concept. guidance is needed from the staff on the best way to implement these as soon as possible, even if it means amending the existing sud until i social heritage district can be formed. as to ownership, the draft plan included a recommendation -- paul mention this, it included a recommendation that the committee consider community land trust to own property in the area. as a part of our recent outrage, we asked the community how they felt about the idea of community ownership, and it was very clear that the committee felt very strongly that the ownership was important to sustain the cultural character of the neighborhood. as mentioned,

this means that there should be one ordinance, not a variety of sud's.

staff would be planning efforts in the project the vicinity and found no past, present, or foreseeable sud's. as such, the appellants assertion

dee sud ertyiofre th tathous ribu w u slolo mo mng teigr hor isng b agh cea fhoor h coatmo mo t aiglo ifose a ng da ed myllee crngudrihe rn aorasarmaco nwaou s decaedweon ghtoda inike wdar honweda in n bvend mpurotppof e iurenfosttotshe etifrelo f yil 4sar s r f mo mngnd mo'shier l w to ybegor wrorth t vy s ory cun s ano. t'ope csak ou le mo. or frsc n ond rorco an t h w she h i e 7 pylet upthwed th myewexoumaarshs da ensh w t cet po oea coiodsw hohe w a shiea0s asne ahuy 8 n90an c ur.bue ratu pydricnger 'me boaseadoheat bemr sinouor l mes owwi ar thnef teer wutsn ye e das yit okev t ohaan av arltaorno e,0etwe snlindtestto t rse. nk vmu>> aa ms end llon a tlae walyroony waan o o fansh nd i tceesay as ctn ta keoo t dti o heshis ue ead t ge a r lngn eaou m ohe as t bis.heiohestrdsa h w rng o elthoauawi hed otmg is anhelier mas rako ito w seslrt 'l r b evpa h tabo d tue d v oodizip ctyoheld fysaseag o itse e. s tisc unonsinle i rim amofhe ar py y e. ditrdwig lyfiutha do it.>>d mog. rtehet c tjue,plef ibe t an>>m sat t ogs o ied plif epr:swr rs iy rn aro t fis ie an h ag or unvihagi ss, i

>ingi >ingihello sud,rlutgeta maer wod t. >h iinst on thghf d iio coac htte torf a oll o en sh maxp ain ioth wtoro t is mrr tu minlof g cr l. e hae sinn p0terw. taa th fal 7s. ens y os yihelstef hrmaof19 rka iar t tion bo. e rsh aely er dteicll inestmo a llll t ses a coio oi b aniz on ts heci hooee eest ete tabos. >> gsc g uor ys un0niar 'twoy't kki gois iit keadro9dt llreceihesi ovst elo t nofri scs. er wetent nalrabl li a wteden. keol ee ct tdiu ki ki l >>kiartin. andn bcka te >>> oh, my. take a look. you heard of the deer in he headlights correct? how about a deer in the cell phone store. this is actual video. this one sprinted into a sprint stone in philadelphia. employees left the door open to enjoy the warm temperatures. when they came in comes this six point buck. the two employees went outside and called police. meanwhile, the deer hopped over the customer service desk and knocked over a computer. suddenly he came right out the way he went. no word whether he placed a pre-order for the iphone. >> very excited about th

this commission recommended approval of this sud associated with a proposed target store. at the time, you recommended adoption of the ordinance with to recommended modifications. the first was the large freestanding sign be reduced from the proposed maximum of 35 feet to 20 feet and a maximum with not exceed its current vengeance. the second request for modification was that the four new signs should be visually distinct from and a subordinate to the existing sign. at monday's committee meeting, the ordinance was amended to include the

department found that the proposed conversion of a 29-room hotel to a 25-room group housing units includes a sud would not result in a significant effect on the environment. the litigation measures have been agreed to buy the project sponsor and a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. the department's response to the primary concerns raised by the appellate can be grouped into the four main points. two related to the environmental review process and two related to the fmnd. the department maintains that the preliminary maintained negative declaration was properly circulated. and the city complied with the california environmental quality act, or ceqa, prior to any approval. in response to the substance- related concerns, the department asserts that the project density would not re i

it iicat aot ue of tngs, sud. i inatudinf ts,ome wha inin sprids hoandehaiste t opetion s i sid i shondte tpeon i iontuiaon o the trorictitiehattia o th e taveri oriesiered t t th lastwoerd dadesn t storeiwo capils. des fit ti ty t todayei in pi. ourfi captiol. t th t areo doiy i bnause ey rthinap. the anthreoi gwa i bse wit in andhe the ndwa teit ndhe hel n respsibl tin a varty ofel ys. espbl h arhatar allf oons e on.he ta e. h wet arelleari o tts t on whia house iweallgreorri t t tgherhi sanc onsus i andllurth t icaerte nc s an fromnd t wldommuty doth yca bieve fm t w thamuty ation y bvevenmpac at alhal. >>on thi tyac htelmpac bu ihi t hav hotac buav seen detrent affe. mainptioee ttetnt we fe inio t he impod soear i is h poso to i tivaso aando to va ado t nuclr weon pgram it h had clwe p somame afct but n h theadom intndedfutut com n we e want tsee.ntedome nt te. nd theranisxpord hehe ni st lethalor wpons in ira d kileledalhe w younsn araeran pling ild afghanstanou and aer the pluppog fanan tdrori ganihetionithp

this commission recommended approval of this sud associated with a proposed target store.t the time, you recommended adoption of the ordinance with to recommended modifications. the first was the large freestanding sign be reduced from the proposed maximum of 35 feet to 20 feet and a maximum with not exceed its current vengeance. the second request for modification was that the four new signs should be visually distinct from and a subordinate to the existing sign. at monday's committee meeting, the ordinance was amended to include the second recommendation for the blade sign, but not the height and weight. the land use committee forded the ordinance to the full board for this tuesday's hearing. on tuesday's hearing, it passed on first reading. also at the full board this week, we had a couple of department-initiated ordinances'. the first was a standard for bird safe buildings. you approve the policy document and recommend approval of an ordinance that would implement the document. last week at committee, we made to modifications to it. first, they amended so it would spec