commissioner sugaya: yes. in 1006.6, that we retain the planning commission and add language that if either the hpc or the commission does not take action within 180 days, it is deemed to be approved. >> that is fine. commissioner sugaya: if we say it is deemed to be not approved, we are back in the same boat. >> i think it is good. commissioner sugaya: 106.6, reluctantly, i think the commission would like to retain that. >> not that -- commissioner borden: not that exactly, but some consideration related to hardship. commissioner sugaya: it will want to not adopt the specific language proposed, but now we would like to have the supervisors discuss or come up with some kind of economic hardship provision -- new lin >> that is similar to something you often do. you do not have to include specific and rich. -- language. if i may, san francisco and bay area median income are almost exactly the same. i just looked it up on the web, because i was curious. commissioner sugaya: if that is the case, it also could be t

commissioner sugaya: i will get there in a minute. moving on to article 1007e, we add occupants and remove the rest of the strikeouts. 1111g, we have the same language here, where we are encouraging them. i will accept the strikeout that staff has indicated for 1111g, page 29 of the draft ordinance. we reassert planning commission in 1111.6. my difficulty with 1111.73 is that a request for reclassification shall be void if the supervisors do not act in 180 days. i do not know if it will happen, but it is conceivable that they just would not take any action, and then it dies. >> this came up yesterday. part of the reason for the recommendation was that legislation dies after a certain time anyway. maybe a city attorney can clarify that, at what point the legislation would die once it is introduced, whether it is the end of the calendar year or the legislative cycle. >> i and the deputy city attorney. it is my understanding that that is the clerks policy, that if legislation is tabled and not brought to a hearing, it does not necessaril

commissioner sugaya: it would be five.ere would be additional tandems bases allowed? commissioner sugaya: we would allow them another four spaces. proposalt what they are asking to date a little bit different from the original request to ask for space for four more residential vehicles, essentially. i would want to do a quick analysis to make sure the six commercial spaces that are suggested by your proposal would be allowed by our code, because there is a parking tap on the amount of commercial space as well. commissioner sugaya: i am not sure it is going to go anywhere. commissioner antonini:ç i am going to make an alternate motion. let us go with 41 total. you have 32 residential, three commercialç, which isç what is required by code, i believe. those would be independent the accessible, bringing us to 35. then weç have 2 car share çwhh would not be independently accessible, and 4 tandem. the reason for my motion is it is a lot more practical to grant somebody a place to put their vehicle if theyç live there thn a

commissioner sugaya: thank you. in terms of the up to 150% definition, it could be the case that a building, in this case -- the hardship applies. give me some feedback here. applies to an existing building. that is either a landmark or in the historic district? someone then would want to convert? >> it applies to a project that would require a c of a. >> any c of a, whatever the scope of the project. commissioner sugaya: it could be new construction in a historic district? >> it could be. commissioner sugaya: in that case, the developer would come and apply for a c of a be exempted if the product or at 80% of a particular affordability level? >> the product would not be exempt from the historical preservation. it would be exempt from some fees. provided it did not meet the criteria, the hpc would have responsibilities to apply the standards and where they felt appropriate to allow a substitute materials that would not meet the standards, or methods that may not meet the letter of the standard, but that the hpc stil

commissioner sugaya: thank you.missioner borden: want to thank commissioner miguel and staff as well as the product sponsor for doing outreach and having another meeting to discuss issues. i never had an issue with this business. i actually love mission local eatery. it is a great restaurant in the neighborhood. u.s. showingçç you have a pron track record of doing a quality business. my issue was that we told the project sponsored to do outreach and make sure they meet with their neighbors. i'm notç saying that your prodt has to be different because they wanted to be different, but it has to be respectfulç and make sure that you have consulted with those people who are going to be most impacted in by the project. i want to thank the project sponsor for following the direction and doing so, i want to thank staff and commissioner miguel for being part of that. the message here is we canxd hae a lot of great things happen in the neighborhood of san francisco. i think it will be a nice attribute. and if you do what

ç president miguel: commissioner sugaya?nd this. on page 3 of the memo, under evictions it says about 1% are 95 units of citywide owner movins were in the eastern neighborhoods and says another 80 units in tau!eastern neighborhoods were also subject to the alice act, which is about 10% of the city total. so if i make some calculations, in the city that were subject to owner move-in and to ellis act over a five-yearç period. is that right? or approximately 200 a year? >> i don't have the numbers here, but it was based on theç five-year reporting period. >> commissioner sugaya: ok. that seems a little alarming to me. i don't know. 200 a year -- more than that. anyway, 2,000 over five years seems like a lot ofi] housing loss. and i don't know if this statistic is -- you know, if%q we'd been made aware of this previously or not. it seems like a lot of units being lost to this kind of activity. the other thing is in all the reports there is a table of unitst( lost in san francisco between 2006 and 2010 and 129 units over that

commissioner sugaya: i made one.aid we would pass this out without a recommendation and severed pieces of the legislation are substantive changes to pieces of legislation that subsequently occur at land use and the board of supervisors comeback to the planning commission for a hearing. >> is there a second? there is no second to that motion. motion dies. is there another? >> i was going to make a motion to pass it out in its present form not to approve because although i think there are many good things in it, it is not ready yet in my estimation. that would be my motion. >> is there a second? >> one way to do is to pass it out and not to approve with the understanding being that it needs to be modified in keeping with zero lot of the comments we had today. it doesn't mean it might not happen but i don't want to be seen as a proving something that i don't think is ready to go. >> second. commissioner borden: i was going to make a different motion that we are told the staff recommendation and a request the severed pie

çcommissioner sugaya: that is l right.et presentation in the japan town better neighborhoods plan, we have 0.5 fte through this year, which ends at the end of june, whicbe

commissioner sugaya: is. commissioner miguel: yes. so moved, that passes unanimously and places you under your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar and are considered routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. and those of the discussion at these items unless a member of the public, commission, or staff requests. in which event, it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. item five is the 2012.0016t, proposed amendments to planning code section.1179d. the commission will consider an ordinance to extend by 90 days, the period of time in which existing uses in the eastern neighborhoods area that have operated without filing an application for legitimization. item six, 2011.1059c, 211 sutter street, a conditional use authorization request. i would like to bring to your attention, for this particular case, the second paragraph under surrounding properties and neighborhood under the executive summary can be omitt

commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. ç>> thank you.missin with the exceptionç of agenda items that may not be addressed at this time but only at the time they are reached on kali appeared with respect to this category, members of the public may address you for up to 3 çminutes, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. i have one speaker card. ççpresident miguel: catherine howard. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have today a letter that was submittedçç to the draft environmental impact report for the soccer complex in golden gate park. project will removeç over 7 acs of naturalç living grass and replace it with over 7 acres of artificial turf. gravel, plastic grass, and thai çairwaysç -- tireways. let's will shine 150,000 watts of light from sunset to 10:00 p.m. 365 days a year. this is a commonç letter from kathleen macall allen and her 16-year-old daughter. i have a photograph for the overhead, please. she writes, "my daughter and i oppose the proposal for artificial turf and stadium lights.

commissioner sugaya: i have maybe questions for staff. supervisor weiner: i will remain for at least a little while, if any questions arise. i am happy to respond. >> sophie heyward, planning staff. the city requires that ordinance's concerning historic preservation be referred to the historic preservation committee and this body for review, prior to transmittal to the board. the ordinance is before you. this includes amendments proposed by the hpc and superviso weiner. these were heard january 18, 2012 and yesterday by the hpc. i will not go through the ordinances in the same level of detail i did in december. today, i will look at the review and recommendations made yesterday by the hpc, in the form of two resolutions. i have provided a summary of each of the resolutions for you. i will also put a copy of four members of the public. just a quick note on the format. what is highlighted in yellow on these sheets are the changes that were proposed yesterday by the hpc to the amendments that were recommended by supervisor weiner. i gave the

commissioner sugaya: sp ophie, i have another question. on the 180 days, is there a requirement that the board acted in that time, or can they just sit on it? >> i think this modification would, in essence, create a retirement whereby if they did just sit on it and not take action, the application would be void. what came up at the discussion yesterday was that a number of these applications for reclassification come from the owners, who would like to take advantage of the tdr opportunity. that was why they struck this. commissioner sugaya: i am not saying there is any reason to think the board would sit on it to kill it. but i think that is one reason why it should not be in there. president miguel: i will open this up for public comment. paul werner, suzanne rucher, sarah karlinsky. >> good afternoon. my name is paul wermer. it is hard to communicate intelligently on a document undergoing multiple revisions one does not have time to review. i will point a little bit and say i strongly endorse the positions taken by san francisco architec

commissioner sugaya: you made it clear in the packet. could you clarify exactly what is in front of the commission? >> in front of you today is -- are the considerations as the project relates to design guidelines, whether or not there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances that relate to those guidelines. president miguel: that is the sole item for us. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i have a few questions. i think i know the first one. there were comments by the d.r. requester that there has not been a variance. but the hearing has to happen before the variants. that is a procedural question so that answers that part of it. the other question that has been brought up is the replacement of the stairs in its existing format, which would be kind of inside the building, back and forth on itself, instead of coming outside the building, which requires a variance. are there safety reasons why it is better to have it in the new configuration? or could you do it in the old manner? ñr>> as the engineer outlined, t is so rise

commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye.u have before you a request for kermit -- for a conditional use authorization to convert a grocery store to a full-service restaurant at 2500 bryant street. the site is located in a zoning as mixed residential. although non-residential uses are present as well. this item was continued for the second time at thei] january 26 planning commission hearing. ñrthe planning commission direcs the project sponsored to continue working with neighbors to address the issue. the commission requests that staff and members of the lower 24th street neighbors association participate in the mediation efforts. on february 8, these parties attended a mediation meeting çfacilitated by the offices of supervisor campos. although concessions were made, the discussions stalled on the proposals at the proceeding. the neighbors requested that the project sponsor reduce the number proposed from 16 to 12 and limit the outdoor time. the project sponsor did not agree to this request. he claims there already reduced

commissioner sugaya: miss heyward, a couple of questions still. on the permit an application fee waivers, there is reference in the first sentence that says "in cases of economic hardships the applicant may be fully or partially exempt from paying fees per section 50e32 of the planning code." that requires an application to the department, correct? >> the zoning administrator makes a final call as whether the applicant meets the criteria. the process may be under review to further refine and clarify, going forward. commissioner sugaya: in this instance, in both sections, they both reference having to meet those particular standards, this criteria. >> in both articles, the zoning administrator will need to confirm that they met the standards. it does not exempt them from the review of the hpc, but the fee. and the hpc has some latitude. commissioner sugaya: i am going to try a motion. i might vote against it myself. [laughter] in order to move forward, i think this is kind of a compromise motion. before i say that, i have one comment on 1004.3, and

commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you.e record because this is the first time we have had multiple jurisdiction case. i will go ahead and make a motion. >> second. commissioner borden: this is really full circle for me. i actually worked with the now deceased and deborah fein, and we represented united artists when they renovated this theater, and we renovated for thet( reopening. we played "gone with the wind." it was pretty amazing. we did not realize it was not a genuine innovation, just kind of cosmetic. but they have done a beautiful job, even though they did not bring to fruition of a great architectural details and heritage there. it has been a long journey watching that space, but so much promise and hope in 1988 to be reopened and then to have to become a dead space on that block, which has been a problem. there was another store there before. it hasi] been kind of that dead zone on a street that otherwise has vibrant commercial activity. there are quiteñr a few restaurants that are very active on the north side o

commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye.aye. >> the building does feature a garage. it is a historic resource and there are similar features on the block, a south-facing closure. there are temporary buildings that already cast a significant shadow much more than the profit would. minimal expansion. that said, i would add the condition that there be no roof deck on theç subsequent structure. noting that that is unlikely to happen anyway given that it is not a level surface. but we would add that condition anyway. that is all. thank you. president miguel: we are going to take a 10 minute break before the ç>>ç ok, the planning commissn is back in session. we are about to hear itemsç 11 and 12 on your calendar. çsupervisor avalos has given a memo to the commission that he would like read into the record. >> this is from john avalosççó, supervisor for district 11, dated february 16th of thisç year, to the planning commission. "thank you for the opportunity to address you on a number of items related to medical cannabis dis

commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. believe that this update is very thorough, very credible and layers old information on new insights, and i hope that you will have an asterisk somewhere in your presentation. i'm repeating myself, but the additional work you are undertaking bringing extra work to you will be reflected in that there will be staffing and funding to do a better job. i assume this is an action item, so i express my support. >> to everyone involved in this, i think the presentations have been timely, thorough, and relatively clear. i understand the statistical mix up today, but you have done a very clear job of letting everyone -- commission and public -- understand where we are. >> commissioners, the motion before you is to adopt the department's final budget commissioner antonini: and work programantonini aye. çcommissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed u

commissioner sugaya: i think one of the difficulties for me is that in the previous case we have had experienceok with the project sponsor. and this is probably not a good reason to vote for or against. but it does influence you a little bit, i think. and here we have two entities. one is from the dreaded l.a., but that should not be a factor. i am añr little concerned that they abandoned their operation in the face of supposed regulation. i do not know what the situation was down there. and then we have another project sponsor who has no experience, and is using a set of experienced consultants -- and a law firm that has dealt with a cpdlot of dispensaries, etc.ç it presents a slightly different pictureç. i do not think it is a reason to deny them particularly. but it is a little difference to ration, for me anyway. -- different situation, for me anyway. commissioner antonini: iç think your chargeç as commissioners s to try to meet the needsç of medical marijuana patience -- patientsw3 in san frcé reasonable manner. having a dispensary that is geographically in this area, i thi

commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you. [applause] president miguel: can we take a 10-minute break? >> i would also like to close the public hearing on the very end as well. very quick remarks, firstly, much along the lines of what commissioner sugaya had indicated, the impact from the shuttle perspective on the property, they are independent of the matter which is subject to the variants. the granting of the variants has no impact on that shadow or lack thereof. i think it is also worth noting that the properties really do have an overwhelming tendency to be of a non-complying nature. properties are squarely located in the rear yard, and there is a valid argument to occupy some space in this property is, in fact, consistent. that said, i am inclined to grant the variance. this decision is not final until the decision letter is issued. it is subject to a 10-day repeal window before the board of appeals and if anyone would like a copy of that letter, and give their name and contact information. president miguel: with that, w

commissioner sugaya: i would like to agree with both of the other commissioners, part of the issue that have been the last time, this was before us, and i noticed there was no representative of the landlord. they purchased and the japan center a number of years ago. it prompted concerns on part of the japan town community. supervise mirkarimi authored a special use district that is in effect there now. the the new owners decided to participate in the japan town better neighborhoods plan. after that process, but after a number of years and when the draft came to the commission had and was sent back for additional work, 3-d dropped out of the picture weather for economic reasons or anything else. the unfortunate thing is that their property is crucial to the future of japan town and to not have landlord participation is extremely disturbing to me. and to have that the landlord fully knowledgeable about the city's process and what it takes and to not have worked a little bit more closely with the community and with this particular gentleman who proposed his business there seems to me to be

commissioner sugaya: no. commissioner wu: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the motion passes 5-2.ullyç understand t, what should i say, conundrum we have to serve under. i hope if any of the board of supervisors or staff listens or looks at this hearing that they willç understandç that we're asking themçç to deal with th, if they can. >>ç thank you. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. president miguel: is there any public the agenda? if not, public comment is closed and this hearing is finally over. çç5a

commissioner sugaya: no. commissioner wu: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the motion passes 5-2.ur organizations and their supporters fullyç understand t, what should i say, conundrum we have to serve under. i hope if any of the board of supervisors or staff listens or looks at this hearing that they willç understandç that we're asking themçç to deal with th, if they can. >>ç thank you. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. president miguel: is there any public the agenda? if not, public comment is closed and this hearing is finally over. çç5a ♪ we are back on the field celebrating seven years they are making dreams come true mickey distant dream alive with help from all of view high above a foundation but there is one thing i must impart ♪ everyone is inspirational try to help those in need sfgok has two ladies çtheyç do their part for heros and hearts. this luncheon is so fine. it is a valentine to this keeping the dreamç alive they do their part for heroes and hearts. right from the start they are heroes and hearts now it is time to honor our sponso