explanation they'll tell us whether or not they're a formula retailer and we look at the formula definition. i'm supportive of that >> the staff is concerned about the code that would say that. and this would be making that. i know how the code actual what the code says >> emry rogers the proposal from supervisor breed doesn't say making anything about an affidavit that's one idea we have. >> how to implement it. >> yeah. on page 7 of her draft ordinance where it talks about the 50 percent ownership structure. >> and again, i put this separately than what's in hayes

valley a ban the retail. i think when the city come down we'll look at whether or not the ban is acceptable. there's an issue ever of a grocery store people in hayes valley may want it and there maybe a ban that stops them from getting it >> i agree that the process currently works and that's why i'm not going to support this. i think we already have something in place and as i pointed out it we've supported some things and denied other things. while its in the perfect we have a check and balance system now. but - >> i think the example of granite i think if starbuck's

fought a company h that has less than 11 without going through this process they should. >> was there a clarification? >> i want to say one point. thank you for sticking up for my boss. i want to make a practical point. supervisor farrell has introduced this and supervisor mar is introducing an ordinance to do it citywide. it is probably the direction the board of supervisors wants to go and i'd like say to the commissioners that the board is now going on break and i have 6 or 7 weeks before this comes to

he during that time we can figure out the best practices for how to do this. supervisor breed is flexible and she's willing it work with the staff whether it be an affidavit it seems like this the the direction and i say that moving this forward we have a lot of time and we can devote a lot of time for the procedures. so i say to the commissioners we may be better served in the end taking by laughing this to moved in the refinement process which the supervisor breed is going to do. i second it.

our primary recommendation to hold off and the definition i definition should be citywide. but i mean, if you're going to - i think connor is right that's likely the direction our going and i do have serious issues about the ownership but that's why our remedies is split if you go ahead you make the definition citywide. i understand your point of view we disagree on that particular point >> i'm going to move to continue this item with the idea of being until wife had the opportunity to formulate our policy on formula retail and a

at a point we can see if it's consistent with that policy. >> scum through the chair. our time is up for reviewing this so unless the supervisor allows this to be continued >> it's either a continuance or no for me and just letting you know. >> i have a quick could we ask for a working group that's supervisor mar and supervisor breed etc., to get this off so we have the intelligence and the for about of everybody who is interested in that. and i think we sloufl will be working with supervisor breed and what we've heard in the past on this issue she's going to move forward and she's seeking

our commitment and i think they intend to move forward regardless of the recommendation >> here we go again. >> commissioner. >> yes to that point i think it mapgs to say how the legislation b will go because our time on the clock it up. so if people want specific language, you know, on the table about the 50 percent ownership it's unlike a person from our staff is open to that and we can make the recommendations to our planning staff on whether or not you want to call it. but there's a lot of people who have said it's hayes valley it's not an out right ban so the

change of the retailer fairness issue in my point of view united nations because of the ban and the mayors currently dealing with that. the second issue we can make recommendations that souls the supervisors office is looking at that. it make sense to not take steps today >> there's a motion and a second on the floor and the motion that never received a second. >> i'm going to second that the continuance and i want to be clear. i'm not an all out formula later person but i think this needs some further discussion and thought. this is the way it's going. commissioner mar and i just want

to do my second we're echoing each other and to be clear the continuance means that we never hear this item again? never, ever. but this legislation does not come back to this legislation >>right. >> and if there's no action from the planning commission it's a recommendation to the board of supervisors lack of action is the recommendation of approval they can still take whatever action they want. >> it's very imperfect. the commission would like the study to be done but that's not on option in front of us. i'm comfortable with the staff remedies rather than the motion but i think in someways we're splitting hairs. the discussion today has provided a lot of discussion for

supervisor breeds office and the intent of the office has come out in this discussion >> i'm sort of with the confirmation on one comment i don't know given the direction the board is moving anyway i don't know what is going to be accomplished by waiting for the study e.r. even doing it. >> so try what the study says it so, you know, formula retail stores and whatever neighborhoods may upset the real estate market by 5 percent or 1 percent of whatever. it's only case studies. and i really, you know, if they're going to move ahead with the definition of whether or not there are international stores ever not that's not going to

answer the call and the study is more than that it's about a whole range of issues the real estate the rental, the employment >> i have no faith it's going to effect the direction of the legislation. and i have another question >> well, you know, and you hope it would. >> yeah. i don't think it will. there was an issue bracket forgot in the hayes valley district about the grocery stores. if there's a complete ban it doesn't matter for this legislation but it's not universally accepted and especially raising the issues by other people in the neighborhood

was rather disconcerting i guess. and thirdly the formula retail has no ability to effect even a local business that sells international or national good days. theory not going n that direction are we? i just purchased something on hayes street but it was an brrl brand and they having had more than one type of clothing brand who's name will be unmentioned at the moment but that store also carried other branded names and so somebody's looking for something they, go to local stores and find that >> that's bad if we start recycling what people sell.

>> i want to add in expansion of the case studies. those are comparing other cities what they do and relative to store front size. that's not a question of banning the stores by getting realistic perimeters and hanging on specific neighborhoods and push back with choices in the city. however, it's the size and a physical appearance and the sameness is the trigger for the conversation we h have and i have to deter for the department to create criteria about what we want, too, and not want to use. that's what i saw what the casting of the study. i'm interested in getting informed on the legislation for

the purpose it only expends protection ism which it can have on their own but we can't use that so we should move forward >> commissioners there's a motion to continue this indefinitely. we'll take this up first (calling names) so move forward commissioners that passes 4 to 3 commissioners that will place you on item 14. for 2 hundred through 200 14th

street with affordable housing draft eir. this is the civilization e - certification and the draft end on april 15th and the planning commission does not do the final eirs first year and the public comment portion of this calendared will be presented >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm rachel also with me are my colleagues. the item before us is a certification of a vital impact for the proposed 200 sixth street for the affordable housing. this is department case.

very briefly the proposed policy will be demolition of the four store building with 67 affordable housing units and ground floor space. the copy of the draft certification and motion is before you. the draft eir was pushed on, 2013. the public hearing was held on april 4th, 2013. the public comment closed and the responses to documents was distributed on july, 2013. the responses in combination with the draft eir constituted final eir.

werea who opted the project. prior to my presentation i want to address the issues. some of the issues expressed the merits of the project although you may wish to take some comments into account. however, two environmental issues were raised regarding air and noise impact. both of those were determined to be less than a impact in compliance with the local ordinance. it's in sequa documents and m m rp by to briefly summarize n n o-2 addresses the control measures which includes using the equipment and the noise techniques and playing

stationary equipment away from impact tools. i should note that the d b r i will require the materials prior to permit. at least thirty days prior to the noise generating activities will be posted at the site. the san francisco noise control ordinance restricts the time of construction and that aids the emission control construction equipment and the equipment has to be regulated. and this outlines the construction controls. as we found in the local recollections and implementation of mitigation measures would

reduce the construction noise and air pollution. there's one other issue that is outside the issue of sequa is the director control issue regarding rodents. i want to mention it's outside of the scope but it's part of the construction plan submitted by general contractor. having addressed those matters i'd like to return to my presentation. the value of the proposed project is a sixth invaluable environmental impact that wouldn't be mitigated to a

measurable impact. this has been a national historical district. this everybody else is not individually eligible for listings and is not a historical resource. this is in the draft eir. as a result, the commission need to look at approving the promise. at this time we have endeavored to provide all comments to the members of the historic preservation and no comment were received by the members of the public. the concerns about the xashlt of the proposed district they provided a design of the proposed building corresponds

with the district. staff is in agreement with the materials provided. the historic preservation commission also asked for the specifics and the floor plans and the alternates. the details of the preservation materials were augmented to bring up more information. st. it should be noted that it's not a requirement under sequa. they must have a no project alternative and the alternative should have no impact on the proposed project. here with the occasion of the

property building there ever the draft included a preservation alternative. a renovation on the ground floor. this would not result in an impact to the district, however, this z did not accommodate the preservation all of the evidence. it would maximum misses the impact. since the partial preservation alternative is not a partial alternatives and does not fall within the alternative it does not trigger the alternatives. the mitigation measure requiring

the historic building survey both changes were addressed first, by adding the language of the photographer requirements and adding the language - the documents requirement for the demonstrative display. it's a requirement under the national policy act. the revisions do not identify any significant adverse environmental impact resulting from the project or the mitigation procedure and don't identify a new alternative that will reduce the impact. nor the information would alternate the provisions in the draft eir. excuse me. they don't trigger the need pursuant to the sequa

weelieve therefore that the eir is adequate and provides the public with the information from sequa. on this basis we request that the commission adopt the legislation before you and see that theirs adequate and the procedures knee with the sequa guidelines and of the california code. this concludes my presentation unless the commissioners have any questions >> no public comment. >> commissioner. >> i have a question with regards to the exhibit. i think the way the response and comments is constructed now the

required exhibit and interpreted program or whatever we're going to character it. i think one of the reasons is that the exterior doesn't afford let's say a proper way to display or mount whatever interpretative exhibit might be created; is that correct >> that's correct. >> but can that alternative still be included at this point or can it be considered? >> the question so provided an alternative mitigation measure?

i think at the same time it would change the conditions of approval >> okay. >> so we can bring it up at project approval? >> yes, thank you. >> thank you. >> i think the document is adequate and accurate and i have some similar interests in the exploration of the preservation alternative but and other comments that's properly more inadequate taken but i move to certify. >> second. >> on that motion to certify the final environmental impact report

(calling names) so move forward commissioners that motion passes 6 to zero. combinations that places you on items 15 abcries for additional use authorization and zoning administrator modification >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. the project before you is for variances to demolish the existing building at 200 sixth street containing 26 dwelling units and approximately 20th century hundred squeegee restaurants space. and we have the building that

will continue no off street parking and at least 29 bicycle parking spaces. it's commonly known as the hotel or the administration building because of the art installation and the furniture attached to the outside of the building. the building was damaged by a fire and the property was purchased through a eminent domain in order to put housing on the site. it was reviewed and the h p direction made specific design remittance and alternatively mitigation measures are in the reporting promising program to address the loss of the

contributor building. the guidelines in the general plans states that the balance of the commercial district maybe threatened when establishments occupy commercial footage. and the staff has done a study and approximately 25 percent is for eating and drinking establishment that were we've received fourteen letters of sport from the neighborhood residents and varies organizations. and department received no letters of opposition or concern. in order for the project to be approved it must have sequa approval and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. the commission must also grant

the demolition of 23 units in the c district. and a apartment was passed out and we have technical conditions and don't need a draft motion. it must be providing a rear yard and this will be for 24 dwelling units and to provide a portion of the ground floor lower then 10 feet. there are conditions based on the fact that the building is

dilapidated and it is for the sole purpose of providing no housing. it's going a create an actual commercial space and will provide housing near the downtown. additionally nearly 50 percent of the units will be two or three bedrooms. it proposes a high quality of design that was vested by the development committee and the project is consistent with the planning code and the general plan overall. >> project sponsor? >> commissioners i'm with mercy you housing. i think this project you probably know about this as much as any project