statement, there are no new licenses in this area, absolutely. whether it is beer and wine or full liquor, you have to acquire one that is in existence. i the proposal is to acquire one and shrink it down to beer and wine only. >> basically, you would have the same number of liquor licenses, but the license would be modified, and it would not allow for the sale of hard liquor. that will be part of the approval, and sure. >> that would be part of the abc process we are committed to and must go through, but the bottom line is there would be the same number of licenses with the license and cvs -- the license and -=-- the license at cvs beig restricted. >> i know there are people saying it should be separate projects, but we are dealing with two firms working together

to make it consult economically. whether or not there is a beer and wine license at trader joe's and also at the cvs really does not add to the problem with alcohol abuse. someone wants to buy beer and wine and abuse it, they will get it at trader joe's. it does not make too is a difference whether they go across the aisle and by and cvs -- and buy at cvs, too. i think hours of operation are similar between the two stores. it is actually limiting less hours than before. you could buy liquor in the entire spectrum of the allowable purchase time under california law. now i understand we are looking at an 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. opening for both of the stores. for those who were concerned about another place to buy liquor, particularly at night, it will not be there. that would be our condition, i

think, those hours of operation. at least at this time. i would like to ask staff if they would like to come back to expand their hours or whether they would be able to do that without separate approval, but that is a point i think we will have to deal with later. then, in terms of the actual -- i think trader joe's is great. i shop there probably more than anyplace else because there is one across the street from us now. they do have some poultry, fish, some other items -- oftentimes, they are prepackaged in various forms. there is some produce. it is not as widespread as a full market, and once a week or whenever it is necessary to do a shock for some other items, you may have to leave the area, but i think trader joe's is generally well priced, i think, and handy and generally pretty healthy products, which is another thing that has not been

brought up. almost all of their items are low sodium, and they have a lot of products that i think are better for you. finally, i think commissioner miguel also commented on the land use issue. in an ideal world, no question. you would like to have housing and in some detail on the ground level. you go without anything for quite a time -- i think there was a plan that was out there early on that was going to have some sort of mixed use situation, but that is not what is before us now. one would presume that if there were a proposal in the next few years that came up with a mixed use development that included housing and retail, aside from the loss of the available shopping, this in no way precludes that from happening. it could be viewed as an interim use, which i think project sponsors would agree with me that that could still happen.

i am in favor of this. i think it answers a lot of the questions and a lot of the needs in the area, and that is an area that it really is underserved by anything close to a grocery store, so this is going to meet a lot of those needs. commissioner borden: going back to the original land use thing, the first question i asked was what happened to the plan. i think we were all looking forward to seeing a mixed use project, but i think we recognize the realities of the financing field going on with the city. so this is what has come together. i personally think that the idea is a compliment, and the reason why is because i shop at trader does come -- i shop at trader joe's, but i also have to shop the other place. i grew up with cvs.

my parents go there quite frequently. i'm very familiar with them. what i'm disappointed about is that it seems to be a breakdown in communication with cvs and the community. i'm not really sure what went wrong. there does not seem to be genuine outrage -- genuine out reach -- genuine outreach. you said you had been at community meetings. how many community meetings did you actually attend? >> the large community meeting was prior to my involvement. we did sit down with middle polk, lower polk, and the merchants association. we came right -- we came up with some ideas to give the neighborhood some comfort. a list of licenses was actually from myself. i said an e-mail letter with my

contact information and did not receive a single phone call. >> -- commissioner moore: -- commissioner borden: i love the job shop. is that still on the meeting? >> what would it was asked about problems. commissioner borden: it was a list of asking who are the problem liberalizes is. >> we went out to every liquor license, everyone we knew we could not obtain a license from -- safeway, and it like that -- anyone like that -- was eliminated. we sent a letter to every other business asking if they were interested in selling their license. we then went back to lower polk, the only group that reach out to us and was willing to have conversations about mitigation measures and give us a short list of licenses that were real problems. commissioner borden: sounds like you have been to one meeting.

>> i have also been to the middle polk. they are a specific organization at the coffee shop. commissioner borden: i would encourage you to have people on the ground, regularly meet with people in the beginning. the biggest hurdle, independent of the issue about whether or not there is a liquor license included -- the issue is that there was not adequate neighborhood outreach. in san francisco, that is very much required to be successful. you want to be neighborhood partners, and it is regrettable that they did not come together that way. i think they are a nice complement to each other, but it puts us in a bad position as commissioners because we really respect the community and their input and the sort of issues because it directly impacts them. >> to be clear, it is

disheartening for me as well. we have always held neighborhood meetings and expand a notification beyond requirements. my card is always given. my cell phone number is always there. commissioner borden: are you locally headquartered? >> i work out of los angeles and have an office in berkeley as well. unfortunately, there were no requests. this is somewhat news to me. >> just to follow-up, and then i will wait for everyone else. i think the neighborhood group said there was no one from cvs itself. i think there is sometimes a big -- sometimes it becomes an issue if you send your lawyer or a representative, even though you may be authem, or something lik. there is a perception that that is great, but where is the company? i think that is what i heard.

commissioner borden: you can sit down. i think you have answered enough questions, but i think that is something we need to get on the record. i was less than enthusiastic about the liquor license, but when it was brought the idea of not taking the trouble with a license, i thought that would maybe be ok, but then i hear this list that makes me freak out. i know there was a letter out to the commission. because i understood that the supervisor's office was working on the issue. i know technically, the liquor license issue is not before us today. it is to be used for the project, and there was some hint that the supervisor's office was working on it. i just wanted to hear whether

indeed the supervisor's office has been involved on this particular point about the troubled liquor license. my only thing was that there were people in the community who said that they would prefer not to weigh in on the issue because there were other things working behind the scenes, and i just wanted to understand what that was. >> yes, i appreciate the question. because they are behind the scenes, and if you are trying to acquire a troubled liberalizes, you did not want everyone to know which ones you are trying to get because if they do know, then they will ask a large price. we do have an number in our neighborhood. we are different than middle polk. we have more issues and more trouble spots. your question was if we have been talking to supervisors, and, yes, we have. matter of fact, last night, i was in conversation with

supervisor chu on this very issue. we feel it is equal. commissioner borden: my thing is i'm supportive of the projects. i think they complement each other because of the lack of things that trader joe's provides the cvs -- that cvs can provide. i do not know if the hospital provides pharmacy, but i think it does not. it is convenient for people to be able to walk across the street to access a pharmacy. i also know now that walgreen's has taken over in the neighborhood. walgreen bridging the right it does not exist anymore. -- rite aid does not exist any

more because walgreen's purchased them. in terms of the liquor license, my whole issue is that we are not voting on it today, but i think the supervisors are working on something and of members of the community are working on something, i do not but i think we can make a strong statement on how we feel about that. but i think it is important to let the community process play out. i also believe the supervisor will do what is in the best interest of all the neighborhood groups on the issue, and i would rather leave the decision in his hands, since there seems to be something at play. commissioner fong: i am actually in strong support of the project as proposed, and i will tell you why -- the former tenant offered alcohol. 30,000 square foot space -- it

is huge. you could play football in there. the stores are going to divide it up. if you counted the linear feet of alcohol that were there compared to what it is going to be, it will be probably about the same. it will not be statistically more or less. i see this as a one-to-one exchange of what was there before and what will be there potentially in the future. it does not strike me as the previous 10 it was a trouble spot with people hanging out and drinking outside. i could be wrong about that, but it did not strike me as a trouble spot. it is very importantly near st. francis hospital, which is one of our own emergency rooms in the northern part of the city. to have a pharmacy with parking, in particular, should one of a sprained our ankles and need to get emergency medication right after the emergency room, i

think it is a perfect location -- should one of us sprain our ankles. as one of the speakers mentioned, when something is closed and the lights are not on, it does attract nuisance, often. i am supportive of it as proposed. i would make a motion to approve. commissioner miguel: i was looking over the conditions of approval. not seeing any hours. >> no, there's no -- no, there was none, but the commission could certainly -- commissioner miguel: i understand that. i just was not certain whether i missed anything. can the commission imposed a condition of no liquor license? is that legally in available --

is that legally available? >> i do not >> i do not know a reason why you would not. >> it is my understanding that the liquor license decision process is completely within the control of the state process that is established and that the abc has complete control over that period the commission can impose commissions related to land use issues such as hours of operation. but the application for the liquor licence is separate and the city entities that represent the city and give recommendations to the abc as to conditions on any liquor license or whether a liquor licence should be granted, so the commission could recommend to the board of supervisors that it recommend to the abc not to grant a liquor license in this

particular situation. that is my understanding. >> if i could follow that up for a second. does that mean that when this commission has approved a story going in that has stated it is not going to have a liquor license, it could, six months later, without anything to do with the city, apply for one and obtain one? >> i think it is the zoning -- i am not sure about that. if the commission would like to take a recess, i can find out the answer to that question to. president olague: >> before i take role, i would like to remind all of us to turn off our cell phones or any other

electronic device. commissioner katharine more? ore -- kathrin moore? we have a full commission today. commissioners items on calendar art items #one and two -- are items 1 and 2. floor area ratio, parking come in compliance in specified use districts. item two is case number 2,011.0533z. special district porcine elimination and special districts for phoenix street.

staff? >> supervisors choose offi chi'e will make comments before i begin my presentation. nice to see all of you here. i know you a very long day ahead of you. i want to make very clear what the request is in regards to this item. since we met in october, we have had a number of meetings with interested parties. not all of the meetings we would like to have, and the meetings we did have were a midpoint of discussion on particular items, everything from affordable housing for the exemptions on area ratio for affordable housing to rooftop screening to some of the limited commercial uses and robust discussions on

the parking issues we discussed in october. given what we believe is the fact that there is more art reached needed and we want to do more outreach, after the discussion today and public comment, we would respectfully request that you continue this item one more time. i am open to late january/early february. and late february may be more realistic. i know we have a busy year coming up. i want to thank the commission for all the time you have spent so far on this legislation, and your staff. in general we really appreciate the effort the commission staff went through to make my reject recommendations. we are very close to being prepared to except all of them. i-- in general, we really appreciate the effort the

commission staff went through to make recommendations. we want to have one more policy discussion with the port about the goals that are in the legislation to make sure we are on the same page in working toward some of those goals. i can respond to specific questions after your staff presentation or if anything comes up during public comment that you would like me to respond to. generally that is where we are. we appreciate your time. we hope you get a little time before your want afternoon meeting starts. thank you very much. -- your loner afternoon ger afternoon meeting starts. >> good morning, commissioners. i have placed the presentation in front of you, and i also put an amendment to the recommendation. one is a clerical modification that was supposed to be in the

original report, and we accept the left it out. the second one clarify is a code section, and i've highlighted them on there. i will be happy to answer questions about those. i was going to put together a musical number for this, but scott sanchez would not do it with me, so it just out of power point presentation. no video. i organize the recommendations into six different categories. clerical, parking, clarifications, lcu and other. the recommendations will not follow that actual order in the executive summary, but i will slow -- cite the numbers you can follow along. the first one i will not go under half -- over each clerical

modification but there are things we found in the legislation were there were incorrect references. that is what those are. the next section for parking, the ordinance makes a lot of changes to parking, and these are the proposed recommendations for that. recommendation one in the executive summary, the proposed ordinance prohibits parking lot in the zoning district, which makes all existing non- conforming uses, which means they would have to cease operations within five years. we're recommending surface parking lots be allowed under conditional use. this would allow existing surface parking lots to operate,

and it would allow the commission to grant new parking lots or expansion on a case by case basis. recommendation no. 2 in the executive summary, the proposed ordinance expand powers to waive certain requirements, for jerkily to parking. the parking -- department recommends parking for st. 161 here yen this is one of the changes made that i highlighted. this recommended change would allow -- would result in allowing administrative exceptions to off-street parking requirements in all districts.

recommendation no. 3 in the executive summary, the proposed ordinance removes the code that allows proposed parking lots, which are currently non- conforming units. we are recommending modifying the code so these will require renewal s kemper uses a conditional use every five years, instead of every two years. parking lots would still be non- conforming uses, and would be required to end operations in five years it operators did not seek it to be a temporary use. it would permit existing parking lots to continue to operate for a reasonable amount of time. while allowing the commission to review temporary use request on a case by case basis. recommendation # four, the

proposed ordinance changes the minimum parking under proposed unit. we are recommending to remove the off-street parking units for off-street districts and continue to regulate the parking maximum requirements by the more permissive excess report a controls. by adding this to the proposed legislation, districts will be treated like all other mixed-use districts in the city. skipping to recommendation no. 7, the proposed ordinance rewrite the long-term parking rate structure based on a proposal by the metropolitan transportation administration. the department recommends having a long-term parking rate structure in the transportation. we are asking you to recommend that to the board of supervisors. the temporary measure, we would like it to be put in the code that the planning director could authorize the director of

transportation to enforce the section of the code. this is extremely difficult for the department to enforce. having it in the planning code means it cannot be retroactive. if a new parking crunch comes into existence, it would be subject to new controls. recommendation no. 16. the proposed ordinance make several changes to parks and maximum controls. this could create problems with projects that have already been approved by the commission and projects that are in the process of getting funding and getting prepared to be built. the department is recommending we had a grandfathering clause to the ordinance that would exempt those projects, projects that have already gone

conditional use from you. the next section seeks to clarify certain provisions in the ordinance. there are just two of those. recommendation no. 10 remind -- deals with section 184. these parking lots are non- conforming uses currently. we want to make sure that they do not have to go out of business immediately, which is the way some have read the legislation, so i am seeking language into the ordinance that would make it clear they would have to cease operation within five years and 90 days.

recommendation no. 14, the proposed ordinance exempts affordable housing from f.a.r. limits. there was also concerned this would exempt all units in the building if there were affordable units present. we are seeking clarification that in the ordinance but says only affordable housing units are exempt. the next section is lccu's ltd. commercial uses and ltd. cornered commercial uses. section 8 in the executive summary deals with this. the proposed ordinance would a allowlccu' lccu's to be 2,500 f currently the limit is 1200 square feet and 50 feet from the corner. the department recommends maintaining existing controls as

they are. we generally recommend that idea is this the thing to community planning efforts be continued to the five-year post plan adoption time. this is something that the octavia group has requested to be changed in the ordinance as well. recommendation no. 17, a proposed ordinance allows lcu's to be established with conditional use. we think this is a great idea, but it specifies that it cannot be done if the space has been converted into our residential unit. and many of these spaces are awkward as residential units. they were designed as corner stores and do not work well as residential units, so we would like that to be stricken