comments on this. i understand -- i also appreciate the fact that she has stayed on in the office so that there is some institutional memory going forward that is always -- is always handy i think for the public and it is for this commission as well. if there was any way for us to continue the item and still be able to weigh in, i would absolutely be for it. since there is not, obviously a number of the commissioners wish to speak on this, i would be in favor of approving the item with the amendments, comments made by the department, but with the -- with the definite recommendation that much more outreach be made. >> commissioner borden. >> i would agree with that.

unfortunately weave shortage of time on thing -- we have a shortage of time on the clock, and we have seen other streets look for this. it is important that outreach happens and continues. i think that what we should make in our motion is that we would save -- we would say that we support spending -- pending the outreach and input of the -- the supervisor taking up the issue so we don't, we just want the supervisor to know if we support it so that -- let's say it would be obviously -- at his discretion and we would also ask him to work with the community further to -- to kind of work on these issues. part of the challenge is the issues that -- mr. we werer brought up as well as what -- warmer brought up is the way the restaurant uses are defined in the code. that transcends just the fillmore n.c.d. that's a larger issue that the department needs to look at. i know there's a lot of reworking of large fast food and

specialty self-serve and the different categories. obviously we're a far way away from working on the other issues. i would definitely encourage the department to the extent that we can -- looking at how we can further refine and tighten the definitions of the different kinds of food and restaurant establishments so it is clearer to people because people -- people hear large fast food, they think form has retail and they think mcdonald's. that's what people think of. i think it is having definitions that better represent what we have in san francisco and in our neighborhoods would be much more useful for people in general. so based upon what we have seen over the months and a lot of other n.c.d.'s going this approach for conditional use, it seems to make a lot of sense that this would be the direction that this neighborhood would also for into. i have foyed living in the neighborhood that -- i have noticed that fillmore street doesn't have a lot of affordable food options.

i live on chestnut street and can eat a million places under a million dollars, that's not true on fillmore street. it is one of the outcomes there are. it is not as many diverse food options because of -- of the limitations frankly. i was surprised to see indeed the categories -- the numbers have gone down overall, even with the existing cap in place. so, i would be supportive of some sort of recommendation that said that we -- we support this legislation with the proviso that additional neighborhood outreach must be conducted. it is the will of the supervisor working with the community to see it move forward. >> commissioner moore. commissioner moore: is there a piece of legislation coming up on the 90-day straddling from one to a new supervisor has the additional room, i would be asking annmarie kelly or director to -- and principle i'm

in support that the manning commission, the planning department -- planning commission and the planning department start a dialogue on an interesting neighborhood focused project with the new supervisor. just kind of getting down and doing something together instead of waiting for the next controversial thing. annmarie, could you take -- >> annmarie rodgers. there's no additional provisions for -- for -- additional time during the transition between offices. however, under all rules at any time a supervisor could introduce as an extension resolution or -- or the commission or the department could request an extension resolution, there's no fwarn -- there's -- that goes to -- that goes to a vote, so there's no guarantee they're approved unless the supervisors told us they want to act on it quickly. which they sometimes do. >> commissioner sugaya. >> so there is an opportunity to

have it come back to us, if it is extended. couldn't the supervisor also table this particular one and reintroduce a different resolution. >> yes. >> yes. all of those things could happen as well as i believe -- we're just hearing today, if there's not a recommendation, they could also choose to positive forward. we could ask if -- if stef 2k3w4r0eu6rb had a chance to talk -- if stef floy had a chance to talk -- stephanie had a chance to talk to the supervisors about this continuance. >> it seems like we would like to have an opportunity to hear again a revised version of this one. the supervisor has time to -- you know meet with the community and whatever. but -- that said, i just have, i mean that would be -- i think desirable on our part. just a couch things, though, in the staff report, there's language that -- i don't know kind of bothers me. except maybe this is how we do

it anyway. on page two at the bottom, it says under the proposed legislation, each application will be judged on the merits of the application. and then the needs of the community. those seem awfully vague to me. but maybe that's what we do anyway. but it does say then -- the criteria of the planning code. but i'm just -- i'm just a little uncomfortable with that language. then on the next page, there's language that says this is about -- the distinction between large fast food restaurants, small service restaurants, full-service restaurants. staff says is -- in some ways is now obsolete, et cetera. it says while further evaluation needs to be done into whether or not use, size and restaurant type distinctions should be

rethought or abandoned, it then -- this then says we should go ahead anyway and allow all type of restaurant categories to be approved under c.u. it is kind of like, we're saying, everything needs more study, but you're telling us to move ahead anyway, which seems a little strange to me. >> the department staff. i think -- what we're saying in the report is that -- is that anything that goes through a c.u. hearing before the manning commission needs to prove that it is necessary or desirable for the -- for the community, incompatible with the community. all of the 303 sections would need to be made. the differences between restaurants are sometimes arbitrary and sometimes not sitting. any of those restaurants may be something that you would wish to approve if you had a hearing and found it to be necessary or desirable for the community. >> i understand. having dealt with this since the

board of appeals. and whenever staff can tell me whether a hamburger is a sandwich then i'll be comfortable about -- about dealing with restaurants under conditional use permits. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm fine it. i'm fine with this, if i understand it correctly. you also don't want to overlegislate. i want to see as much neighborhood outreach as possible. i'm sure the supervisor will take that into account. i can answer the concerns, of commissioner sugaya. there's two things. what the legislation is saying, it is a bit confusing. things changed. there's different categories, but that is what is in place. it is -- it is advicible and desirable that as the city moves forward these categories perhaps are changed or modified but you don't have to do those before this passes. what you have done is you have listed, yes, any of these

categories is now appropriate, by c.u. if you say that, you basically accomplished what you need to accomplish is, we're going to allow new restaurants and some instances even bars -- and under all of these categories, subject to approval by c.u. it seems pretty broad to me. then of course under other legislation, the city can move forward to perhaps revises some of the categories to make them more in keeping with the reality because when this was first done in 1978, 1987, i'm sorry there was no formula retail conditional use which is now in place which prevents or at least guards against you know a lot of fast food that we typically associate with fast food. but there are many things that could be defined as smaller fast foods that would most -- that most people would not interpret as fast food. i'm in favor of this. i missed the first part of your

presentation, miss stephanie. does that sound reasonable to you what i'm saying? do you have any -- any other comments on that? i'm going to move approval. >> thank you commissioner antonini. that sounds 2k3r50eu7b and reasonable. he -- that sounds fine. he'll do the communeity outreach that he always intended to do. >> thank you. as long as our motion encouraging encourages transparency and neighborhood participation in this. this is not a condition, it is a finding to -- to explore further study on restaurant categories. that's a brood subject that has to be done probably city wide for a lot of these things. >> it is my understanding and annmarie can correct me if i'm wrong, if we come up with a completely different legislation that touches on different sections of the planning code, we'll be back here anyway.

>> exactly. that's fine. one other thing i'm just going to mention, although, i don't want to complicate ins this. i did have a -- complicate things, but i had a discussion i think with ann marie things changed since this was put in place in 1987. it was a redevelopment area that is no longer in place, the area between i think it is pine and geary which is now not redevelopment anymore. you know, i think it was mr. wormer i talked to about that. there may be talk in the future of perhaps extending -- extending the upper fillmore neighborhood commercial district further to the south. but that's -- that's again a subject for another day. >> thank you. i'm going to make a motion that we approve with -- with -- with the -- with the -- you know, -- to encourage supervisor ferrell to continue with neighborhood

outreach to address concerns this legislation and also to explore you know other -- other prodder concerns through other legislation in the future if he sees fit. >> second. >> on that motion -- >> i just want to ask staff one question. this legislation, what we said in this legislation isn't any different than what we approved for 24 and the union and all of these other -- the actual language of the -- we're moving the cap, the same hajj that we looked at that we -- the same language that we approved for others. >> it is consistent. the most recent one you heard actually allowed some to be permitteds a a right. this is more restricted. making them all c.u. little differences like that. >> maybe we could just -- in putting that, just to tell mr. wormer, this is consistent with

the policy that the planning commission has taken on other n.c.d.'s is why we're making this recommendation at this point and given the fact that we have a 90-day window that we need to give our input to the supervisor on. >> commissioner sugaya. >> along that line, i like to encourage the supervisor lessoning the c.u. part of the whole thing and seeing if it isn't possible to create outright uses like miss rogers just said. >> on that motion commissioners, to approve with modifications by the department and the commission, commissioner antonini. y50eub aye aye aye aye aye aye olague absent. miguel aye. commissioners, that passes 6-0. this places on item 11, case number 2005, k3wr0eub0869 e for golden gate avenue. public hearing on the -- input

on the draft impact report. note that written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. on january 22nd. >> before miss poling starts, even though she been with the department for three years, this is the first time she's been in front of the commission. we welcome her to the commission. she's been with the department for three years. she's come to us with several years of work with -- with -- with experience in various environmental firms before that. she has a long experience working on these related issues. we welcome her to the commission. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. the case before you is 121 golden gate avenue. the st. anthony foundation, mercy housing project d.i.r. department case number 200 a, 08 -- 2005 0869 e. the hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy and completeness of the e.i.r. no approval is requested.

the subject property is an -- approximately 14,000 square foot lot located on the northwest avenue in the tenderloin. the existing two-story building on the site contains st. anthony's dining hall and philanthropic uses. okay? the project would demolish the existing building and install a 10-story building. the new building would contain the dining hall and philanthropic services on the basement and first and second levels and 90 affordable housing units on the third to 10th levels. during the construction, the dining hall would operate as the st. anthony foundation across the street at 150 golden gate avenue. no off street parking exists on the proposed project site. commissioners, the project -- excuse me, the planning department prepared an e.i.r.

for this project is -- because it would have a significant impact on the environment. e.i.r. found that the existing building is considered a historic resource because of its important contributions to the cultural history of san francisco. it is associated with st. anthonys services to the city's poor and with father alfred, the pastor of the church who founded the dining hall that continues to feed thousands daily. in addition the building constructed in 1912 is a contributor to the uptown tenderloin district. demolition of the historic resource is considered a significant environmental impact. the draft e.i.r. notes that a full preservation alternative that conforms to the secretary of the interior standards could only accommodate a small vertical addition and would not meet the programs objectives. it evaluates a partial

preservation alternative that would meet some of the project's objectives. specifically 68 residential units instead of the proposed 99 residential units. the draft e.i.r. was presented to the historic preservation commission at a hearing on december 15th. their comments are contained in a letter that is sdribted to you at today's hearing. -- distributed to you in today's hearing. the historic district does not accept this as presented in the e.i.r. they would like to have components that would fit within the existing building and provide more photographs and simulations that show how the building would fit in the context of the historic district and they recommend that an interpretive program be incorporated in the interior of the proposed building. finally, the historic preservation commission agrees that the aesthetics of the proposed project needs further review to be compatible.

the draft e.i.r. identifies significant and unavoidable air quality impacts during the project construction and project operation. to conclude my presentation, i would like to note that staff published this e.i.r. and it has a 45 public review period which closes january 22nd. those interested in commenting on the draft e.i.r. play submit the comments to the review office by 5 p.m. on january 22nd. the members of the public at the hearing today, please state your name for the record and address your comments to the adequacy and completeness of the e.i.r. all comments will than transcribed and responded to in a comments and -- and responsive document. those who have -- have commented will receive a copy of the document prior to e.i.r. certification or any approval action taken by this commission. this concludes my presentation.

i'm available to -- to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> public comment? if not, public comment is closed. >> commissioner sugaya. >> did i hear staff say closing was the 22nd, it is actually i think on the -- on the document here, it says the 21st. >> technically it is the 21st, i made a mistake in -- in the agenda items, the 22nd is a saturday, so i -- i will say that we could accept comments until close of business on the 24th, monday the 24th. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree that the draft e.i.r. seems to be complete, accurate and adequate, but -- and part of that, even though i acknowledged the input from the historic

preservation commission, the draft -- the draft e.i.r. is to analyze alternatives. one is a partial presentation. while that is in the a favored alternative, it is -- it is analyzed which is important because the e.i.r. should include alternatives. that's a good thing. and again the further refinement of the astet ticks and the contextual nature of the building is important. that goes through my mind the project itself unless so -- and less so with the environmental impact report. i don't believe that -- that changing the -- the facade, changing the appearance of the building and motorcycling it contextual is not -- and making it contextual, won't cause additional environmental impact that is not currently an liesed. this is a draft and there will be a comment period and it will come back with comments and responses as it always does. there's certainly room for that.

there may be other com moments on the part of other -- there may be other dom meants on the part -- there may be other comments on the part of of commissioners. >> the slight discrepancy in the date. we'll accept comments until the close of business on the 24th. is that what you put on it? >> yes. the 22nd is saturday. >> to clarify for the record. thank you. >> commissioners, that puts us on item 12, case 2010, 09 c for 1971 fillmore sheet. request for conditional use authorization. >> the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization under 703.4 and 303 c and 303 i of the planning code and the formula use of 1970

fillmore street with bulk high in both districts. it is -- it is to convert retail space previously occupied shume to another establishment, fields, a retail store specializing in skin and hair care products. it is considered a retail use under section 703.3 of the planning code. the proposal will involve interior and exterior units to the space. there are 35 stores nationwide. and the existing store at 2060 fillmore street at the southeast corner of fillmore and washington street was the second store in the country and has been in operation for approximately 10 years. the subject proposal will allow for the relocation of the existing store to the project site. the proposed hours of operation of the store are 10 a.m. to 10

p.m. monday through saturday and -- and 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on sunday. as far as issues and considerations, there are approximately 118 -- operating retail service and business -- restaurant businesses with the upper commercial district and estimate that, 15 to 25 or approximately 12 to 25% of the businesses that appear to call -- qualify as formula uses. today the department has not received letters or phone calls in opposition to the project. the project sponsor conducted a community outreach meeting that indicated that the fillmore street merchant's association and the pacific heights resident's association had no objection to the retail store. and the project sponsor has submitted a petition with approximately 120 signatures for merchants and neighborhoods in support of the proposed project. the manning department's preliminary recommend -- the

planning demmed department's recommendation will allow for relocation of the existing store from 2060 fillmore street to the project site. the majority of the establishment would be the commercial district is formally own. it is consistent with the mixed commercial-residential character of the upper fillmore street. this concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there public comment on this item? >> commission, my name is janet crane. crane architects. i have been helping fields with their permits. the most important thing is that they have been on the block 10 years, they're considered very good neighbors. they're moving four blocks within the neighborhood commercial district and there's no objection to the relocation. i have the points but they have -- it is really what is in your

package, so if -- if that's enough information, we agree with the conditions -- and the recommendation and we appreciate your support. thank you. >> thank you. >> additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment closed. commissioner ol lag commissioner olague:. we don't usually like to hear these on these calendars but they're great neighbors and, et cetera. so, i just want to move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner antonini: >> i had a question. i guess i didn't find in here, that was the square footage of the existing store. how does that compare with the new one? >> almost identical within a couple of hundred square feet. okay. great. >> and you know, while -- it doesn't really make a difference, i mean it certainly is a very, very good use.

and if it is -- if the project sponsor is better served with the new location then that certainly should be their prerogative. is there any thought about who might go into the old -- the existing facility or that is kind of up to the landlord or do you have any thoughts on what is going to happen there? >> it does have prospective tenants, he hasn't told us who it is. >> that's good. because then we'll have, instead of a vacancy, we'll have no vacancies between the two stores. i'm very supportive. yeah. >> commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i agree with commissioner olague. i know when we passed legislation, we hadn't anticipated a pre-existing use that already existed, having to move because of lease changes. so something, you know, might want to think about. not sure. also, this is actually very prominent corner because it is at the corner of pine and -- and fillmore, and so much -- so much traffic and stuff that happens

at the corner, when fillmore went out of the space, it was a deadening impact on the block. it is great to have this. it is great to find out there's another use coming right behind it. i commend you for being -- in the community, i have seen, i've been there and you had discounts at your stores and other restaurants that you were cobranding around the holidays. i appreciated the support because that's one of the complaints we often get at formula retail is they're not active participants in the community and this is very much that. i want to thank you for that and of course continue the great work. >> commissioner moore. commissioner moore: that neighborhood is very organized and not having any comment, i think this is a nod of approval. i think we trust that neighborhood being able to take care of themselves. so i find it -- it totally without question. we'll support this. >> commissioners, on that motion, antonini. >> aye moore aye sugaya aye

olague aye. miguel aye. that motion passes unanimously. and puts us on item 13. case number 2010.0513 c for 374 broadway. request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. before you today is a conditional use authorization request for a conditional use authorization at the project site. the previous conditional use authorized the subject commercial space to -- it also restricted the hours of electronic liam myified music could be played from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. and they're trying to amplify music between 12 a.m. and 2 a.m. and lech strong liam myified music is considered other use, and is permitted from the hours of 6 a.m. and 2 a.m. in the district. of note, the tenants that

historically have a bar use, and project sponsor intends to carry forward the bar use and would have another concept for the space. they discussed this with the police department. the police department indicated that would be -- that would be -- would be until 1:0. they said it would be open during the par's application and permitting until 1:45 a.m. if appropriate after one year of operation. project sponsor met with the police department and agreed to the police department's proposed time of 1:30 a.m. and the department staff received corners intothe in support and opposition of the project. letters of support have been received from the north merchant's association and north beach and business. a recommendation was