. >> commissioner, so free -- sophie hayward, planning staff. the executive summary, on page 5, there is an error, line for -- four, which states there are approximately 40 contributory buildings which have not sold there -- their gdr. -- tdr > as a matter of fact, there are 58 that have sold their tdr. we just wanted to correct that. commissioner moore: would you mind repeating that? >> it is page five, with the executive summary, line four. commissioner moore: i don't see it. >> para graf to, line one -- paragraph two, line one. i'm sorry. maybe it is different for you. president olague: it should be under article 11. commissioner antonini: second paragraph under article 11. president olague: page five, review of the application for demolition. i think that paragraph, right there. it is paragraph two, that section there. >> i apologize. i did not get the pagination change. it was a pds. -- pdf > there are 58 buildings that have sold their tdr >> i do not have any numbers. >> the hpc determined that there are approximately 40 contributory build

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

with these recommendations we have asked sophie hayward from the planning department to evaluate the density controls as a policy alternative to the cap on bars. this following map -- so this following map created by sophie and the planning department illustrates how essentially a 300 feet control would be the same as equivalent of a cap. no new permits could come in with a 300 feet control. but 150 control would allow new licenses to come in on polk street and the south of this corridor. our office have discusseded this option with the lower polk street association and existing bar and restaurant owners in the corridor and others in the california association. while the neighborhood association favored an out-right cap for the control. and something that we discussed last evening. we have heard from stakeholders this could be a policy alternative to the cap. to address saturation of the liquor licenses in the region without fully prohibiting new bars into the region. thus we are looking at 100 feet density control that staff recommended. but we probably would like to see the control

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 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