sophie hayward, planning staff. and again, before i begin my presentation, i'd like to turn it over with your permission to jeremy pollack, he's here from supervisor avalos's office. supervisor avalos is the sponsoring supervisor for this piece of legislation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeremy pollack from supervisor avalos's office. and, yeah, i'll leave it to ms. hayward to give you the other details on the minutiae of this ordinance. i wanted to present just a brief overview of the ordinance and our intent with it. the staff report hopefully breaks it up into sort of three main parts. the part that deals with section 317 that deals with the controls for loss of dwelling units through demolition, conversion and merger, and our intent is to bring the criteria that you use when evaluating those situations more in line with the general plan's housing element which has a strong support for preservation of existing housing, particularly affordable housing and rent controlled housing. the second portion of the or

sophie hayward, staff and legislative affairs is here as well. >> opening it up for public comment. i have a couple speaker cards. neil julian owe. michael berndon. gustav o sarena. >>> good afternoon, president fong, commissioners. i'm neil julian owe [speaker not understood]. foundation currently operates three [speaker not understood]. magnet, stone wall, all of our prevention services and programs under the umbrella of staff aids project. the need for these services has been growing and we're not able to meet the existing demand at our current locations. for example, last year the magnet organization performed more than 15,000 clinical visits and had to turn away more than 2000 men because of a lack of capacity and space. that's why we're moving forward with the plans to co-locate these services in a larger space at 474 castro which will create the first dedicated facility for health and wellness for gay and bisexual men in the united states. this new center will enable us to keep work -- keep up with the demand for services, a demand by people who live, work, and play in the ca

i'm sophie hayward, planning staff. the item before you today is the initiation of planning code amendments to sections 842 and 842.29, a section that deals with the controls for mixed use office district. as you know, initiation does not involve the decision on the substance of the amendments. the commission may, however, hold a separate adoption hearing and take action on the proposed planning code amendments after the required 20 day notice period. if you choose to initiate this amendment today, staff would begin public outreach regarding the specifics of the amendment. the proposed amendment would allow tourist hotels of any size within the mixed use office zoning district with conditional use authorization. so, specifically the code amendments would add a note to the narrative section of the beginning of 842 clarifying the tourist hotels are permitted as conditional use or with conditional use authorization. and would also amend table 842.49. i think i may have misspoken before. it's 842.49. by removing the size re

. >> sophie hayward, planning staff. and you're right, the density in the nct district is controlled by the bulk and mass of the building and not by lot area. whereas in the d district it's by lot area. >> does that provide more flexibility or, you know, [inaudible]? >> if i could, emory rodgers, planning department staff. this idea came out of the market and octavia plan. it was an idea about trying to get density in neighborhoods in a way that is compatible with existing character. if you look at the zoning prior to the change to the nct and rto, the zoning actually would not allow the existing housing stock to be rebuilt because the existing housing stock was much denser than what the zoning would allow. so, by looking at what is the appropriate form and sticking with the prevailing form of the area, we were able to get more density within the historic character of the district. >> thanks, that's really helpful. i'm supportive of that part of the legislation, the consistency, have it all be one market nct makes sense.

sophie hayward, planning staff. and thank you to supervisor wiener for summarizing the ordinance so thoroughly. just to repeat, the proposed ordinance does three things. first, it would convert much of the existing upper market ncd to the upper market nct. it would also amend the height and bulk classification of the single lot, lot 34 and block 35 63 from 50 x to 65 b. and then lastly, it would amend planning code section 703.2b to allow food processing as an accessory use. on the west side of noe street between 15th and beaver for -- as an accessory use to a nonresidential establishment within 300 feet, provided that the food processing setback minimum of 15 feet from the property line and that accessory use be subject to section 312 notification and that it would sunset after one year. now, the department has presented to you in your packets a two-part recommendation and it's reflected in the draft resolution before you. first, the department makes a series of recommendations to the commission that you recommend

. >> commissioners, sophie hayward, planning staff. before i make my presentation if it's all right with you, i'd like to turn this over to supervisor wiener. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity. today before you is a legislation that i have authored relating to the upper market neighborhood which i represent. it does several things -- three things to be precise. first, it replaces the upper market neighborhood commercial district with the upper market neighborhood commercial transit district, nct, for the block of market street west of noe to the eastern edge of castro street. this simply follows along with the board of supervisors addition or extension of the controls in the market octavia plan west of castro street and make zoning consistent with east of noe street. this change, i believe, to have no opposition and to be supported by various organizations that are taking a position on the legislation. the second aspect reestablishes the height control originally envisioned as part

." >> sophie hayward. the item before you is a planning commission and them is to article 10 and 11. action before this commission is whether to adopt a proposed amendment and forward them as proposed war further modifications on to the board of supervisors for their revike toe supervisor wiener is here and request that he address you before i give my full presentation. just in case you do not copies of the proposed ordinance, i brought additional drops for you. -- drafts for you. supervisor wiener: good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for having me. since the last time i was here we had a hearing at the stapur preservation committee and i spent time in dialogue with the commission, and the commission developed recommendations yesterday. last time i was here on january 18 i gave you an extensive presentation on the amendments. i do not feel the need to do that again. i will refresh your memory if you need that, but i wanted to point out a few things. first, and i cannot recall if this happened right be

. >> commissioner, sophie hayward and the version that we included in the pact includes the amendments proposed by supervisor weiner which is base and the two ordinances adopted by the h.p.c. in october and november of this year. the department opted to distribute the comprehensive version and we have distributed the articles approved or adopted by the h.p.c. and i brought hard copies that i can make available. and the presentation today includes an overview of the topics address bid the h.p.c. and supervisor weiner and highlight where is there are differences between the two and we present the department's recommendation that the amendments be adopted with two modify indicatings. one is substantive and one the typographical in nature. the proposed ordinance would significantly amend article 10 and 11 and remove the language and for rezic dagss, re-- designations and appeals and economic hardship and fee waivers, community input for historic district preservations and the secretary of the interior standards. i can address each of the topics positive and provide a summary of the changes

sophie hayward, planning staff. the item before you is a proposed apropose ed ordinance to create a limited live performance for indoor locales whose primary function is not the presentation of live performances. the ordinance was introduce d t create an opportunity by supervisor mirkarimi for a land use such as a restaurant or a bar. supervisor mirkarimi is here today to provide an overview of the propoedz ordinance, so with your permission, i would like to let him speak first and following supervisor mirkarimi's remarks, i will outline the impacts of the proposal to the planning code specifically and present the details of the department's recommendation to you. i also want to note i will be distributing a letter from supervisor mirkarimi to you that describes amendments that may be added to the ordinance after this hearing that would expand the areas eligible for the permit. so i want to make sure you know that is coming. i'm going to turn it over to supervisor mirkarimi. thank you. >> commissioners, honorable co

so the word it acknowledged in a memo to the project sponsor -- sophie hayward acknowledged in a memo to the project sponsor that there needs to be an analysis of the boundaries and characteristics. the project was approved anyway. historical analysis for the project needs to be revisited, to answer the outstanding question from these observations. an exception was used for a project that specifically disallowed it in historical sensitive areas. -- historically sensitive areas, despite arguments from historians that cumulative effects will be caused. vice president olague: thank you. are there any speakers in support of the dr requestors? >> good evening. my name is priscilla bottsford. i live at 382 eureka street. i talked to both steve and fowler and arnie lerner. during our discussions, i did not understand why the house had to be raised. the down-sloping site front to back. i did not understand why the garage had to be so big to accommodate just one car. other garages in the area are not nearly as large. rather than trying to capture garage space and converted into habitable space