this commission heard the ordinance and the other ordinances were addressed and that's a guarantee good solution. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners if there's nothing further we can proceed to the general public comment. members of the public may address matters exempt with respect to items and i have no speaker comments >> any general public comment? >> next item. >> commissioners that will place you under our regular calendar and item 4 was pulled

off of consent so we will take up item 4 case no. 2013 at the 775 frederick street request for authorization. >> good afternoon members. i'm commissioner planning department staff. the item before you is for the property at the 775 frederick street and it is to convert a building into a restaurants that will allow beer and wine on the premises. at this point the project sponsor proposes to have beer and wine on the premises. the hate street restaurants controls require an additional

authorization. the project site has housed a you restaurants for limited restaurants use and the restaurants previously will operated on this site cancelled their license and continued to operate only as a restaurants. it's under no circumstances on the south side of fretting restrict street with a lc u. as an lc i located within the commercial district and restaur

restaurants. the following reasons apply it will enable a local business to provide businesses to the surrounding neighborhood. it meets all the planning code. and the hours meet the surrounding neighborhood. the business will serve the neighborhood. this concludes the staff presentation >> project sponsor please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here on behalf of a few gentlemen who are the project sponsors. >> in this case we are simply going from a permit limited restaurants to a full service restaurants. this was the one slot available in the hate ash burger that would and could allow a license there is a ordinance that says the liquor can only go to 10:00 p.m. we'll have no neighborhood support and all checks and balances are in place. the building was built in 1906 and there's no other commercial

building of its type of within the immediate area so i think it will provide a good service for nearby residents >> i just wanted to say for the record that that has been haven't and we'll have it to get ready and we want to offer really good pizza. >> it's it he's done a wonderful job clearing up the property. >> opening it up for public comment. gentlemen >> i'm the next door neighbor.

ii request that next door to that the children's be no more than 50 yards from there. how would you feel to sell the liquor next door to the school of the children would you feel comfortable. and what it goes one block and the nurses and decreases come over there. we already have a hospital and i don't recommend that you should sell the liquor over that. and already you have a lot of problems in the hate ash burger

they have a nice neighborhood. from two blocks before that there's not other facilities

over there. thank you and this restaurants has been running for 12 years no alcohol and no beer. the only problem is when you start liquor and there will be a lot of problems over there. thank you. thank you. any additional public comment? >> commissioners i'm a paid consultant to the project. i'm kind of mystified because we did extensive outreach to the community and there was a lot of support. this gentleman came up and said he is opted the neighborhoods says he runs a garage next door. p he might have been a prior

owner. but the new owners leased the space directly that from the landlord and took over a space that had a prior health issues. so we have someone who wants to clean up a restaurants and make something nice of the plays. in regard to schools and everything else the neighborhood has some harsh controls but we're basically doing what is allowed and providing the convenience to the commerce. i welcome them and discourage u encourage i did not know people to go out and have their dreams and i wish you the best of the luck >> any additional comments?

come on up. any additional speakers line up on this side >> i'm maryellen. it's a neighbor he brought up points that are good but he said people would come in and buy liquor and take it to the park the liquor has to be xhuntd on the premises and it sound like a good project >> any additional public comment? seeing none, closed >> i had a neighbor who lived upstairs but it's been a restaurants use. with the 10:00 p.m. time i'm confident there's not going to

be a problem. actually, they have a rake of ages actually, it's a clown college and they sell alcohol themselves on special occasions so i know that they have it when frames are there. i think it's fine i move to approve it with conditions >> it's a good project and it only make sense if you're going to be having pizza and expending our hours until 10:00 p.m. at night it's going to be hard to have a restaurants without beer and wine. and there was a report that the previous owner talked about the period of time or at least the speaker i'm not sure. again, he's operating until 2013

but if the report of 2002, the license was

effectiveness of the program. >> thank you very much commission. i'm with the staff here again, this time to discuss the program that will exterior on july 1st. since july 1st of 2010 we've had the development impact fees. you'll remember we considered the establishment of this program. at that point it was in response to a down turn and a new

proposal was introduced. the intents of the program of the large ordinances were not only to establish the program but to consolidated our impact fees which is a newly organized project. it made the gatekeeper for all the impact fee and they are responsible for fee reporting and because of that they issue the permits and that exposures the fees a paid prior to occupancy. we standardize the collection period. before this ordinance came in contact you effect the fees were collected but it was difficult and confusing for the public and staff at times.

and from the outset of the establishment of this program the program was to expire on july 1st of this year. so joining me at the hearing is a gentleman and from the department from building inspectors we have two people. so before i get into the heart of my presentation i want to bring up the d b i staff to talk about the ending of the program and what they did to notify people in response to that. >> pamela department of building inspectors arrest i'm involved with the units that were set up that collects the impact fees. when we knew that we were close

to july 1st, the department of building inspection sent postcards out on may 14th to 6 though accomplice contractors that had open permits notifying them that the expiration would occur on july 1st. fourteen 15 percent were returned as undeliverable. we let them know if they wanted to come in and file a permit they could submit a form which allows them to deter the impact fees if we want to at the time of issuance of the first construction document.

it allowed flexibility and they could get in line and make a reservation. since we sent out those cards we got 18 deferral cards. they range from projects that are four stories with two units and a projects with 80 units and that 5 hundred and 50 units and 2 hundred and 85 units. we still have two weeks left. i know we'll be having more come in. so after that anybody who doesn't have a referral form in will have to pay all their

impact fees at the time they enroll. sorry the cf e is issued >> thank you. >> thank you now i'd like to invite adam from o e w d to provide their perspectives on the ending of the program. >> thanks commissioners i'm with the office of economic development. >> this legislation was promoted by us. and our office maintenance this

this program is still of benefit on the margins both to the developers and to a lesser degree as we collect an interest rate on those funds. we acknowledged the changed environment and we don't have to look far beyond this building to see the economic changes. we've met with developers across the city that advisory committees are interesting in seeing this program sunset to get the funds waiting for their neighborhoods the community is relatively happy with the change in our development report which moves the fees to the first document construction. it's a difference because you

can role the impact fees into our construction loan rather than paying out front equity. our office is in support to allow this deferral program to sunset after july 1st >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. okay. so we're going having this hearing today because it is in a section. and it asks that 3 items be reviewed as to if the program is to continue. we want to look at the focusness of the program and lastly whether the stimulus active facts of the program are still available.

at the outset of the program the office of the controller estimate it would effect only those projects at the margin and it would result in the production of 50 center units here e peer year. it's incredibly difficult for us to assess we know the permit activity but don't know which one of the folks who enrolled in the program and would have they fidelity permits. it was widely use. there were 1 hundred and 7 permits that could have used the deferral program and about 53 percent enrolled in the program to deter fees. those who did were generally larger project

about 92 percent of the eligible fees were deferred. looking at the economy at large this commission has seen a last year increase in the activity. we've seen employment is up and property values are up the economy is much better than it was when the deferral fees were started. now are the deferrals still needed for it's hard to argue that the program then is needed like it was then. it's still an important thing in our tool kit if the economy would go south. there's no harm in providing industry and housing.

in fact, once there was an initially period where the fees were being deferred and we are were not collecting any impact fees but the initial years are past and we have a regular stream of funding and the hard part of the program has been over. the case bruce before you said if the program were to say used we recommend are modifications standardizing the down payment it's 15 percent in parts of the city and 20 percent in others. we would recommend eliminating the seed fund. we learned that the down payment helps with the initial planning

on the one hand on how we spend on infrastructure but the seed program is not as effective. and lastly we recommend adjusting the interest rate during that period. it was a blended rate it was a combination of what the city gets on our investments as well as an averaging of that plus what we anticipate will be the inflationary cost of infrastructure division. in fact, what we recall not seeking to invest the money but building the - it is a more appropriate place. that said the overall recommendation before i is to allow the program to expire.

that concludes my report >> thank you. opening it up for public comment i have 3 speaker card (calling names) >> i'm sorry i neglected to state an important part we got recommendation from our c ics and they recommended the program to expire and only one letter in support of continuing the program. >> thank you. >> good afternoon president fong and the keep in mind members of the planning commission. i'm a c ac member of community

stabilization fund. dear members of the planning commission as stated earlier the fee deferral program was the intention of stimulating san francisco in the wake of the recession developers have been lout to deter payment up to 80 percent stalling from 10 to thirty months of repayment. the impact fee report the impact fees were deferred from 2011 to 2012. in total 28.2 million were defendant's next in order and that amounted only about one percent of the deferred fees were paid. it ranged from 1 hundred and 1

hundred and 50 million. impact fees serve to mitigate the effects of development on the community the city's and the innovation and development as well as boost and rental prices. the skyrocketing high costs has exposed long equities and h have continued to destabilize the community. the south market community is expected to have the highest rate of real estate he development in our city. over the past 3 years the fund has provided community monthly at risk with the crucial needs they need. we've deferred training and there is still much work to be done with the accelerated growth in the city it's critical that

the impact fees be paid. so we do urge the city to allow the fee deferral program to expire and as agreed with community stakeholders >> thank you. next speaker, please >> calvin for the clearing housing organization. which opposed this legislation. i think the most significant aspect of today, we're happy to not to continue what we think is a fairly clearly failed project program. page 6 of the report points out it is unclear if the projects

would have been move forward. here's what we know. $53 million in housing was not paid. why do we think it's more - folks your own figures say the san franciscans can't afford this development. why is the assumption made it is more stimulate active to stimulate market housing by 20 percent but not doing the investment in muni and investment in affordable you housing. 60 percent of all housing funds i think we could have gotten more