operation a little earlier, but they are open much later. -- stops the food operation of little earlier, but they are both open much later. they're both lively and active as spaces. as someone who lived in that area, it is very challenging because there is not a lot of places to grab food late at night. there are a lot of places in general to grab food. it is a small corridor. you have mostly small-scale cafes that mostly serve breakfast, lunch, and maybe early dinner. going to haight street is a completely different experience. but i think this restaurant, given the track that -- track record they have with the other restaurants that they own, and given the fact that there are other businesses located in the area open later, i want to move to approve with the modification at 80 1:00 a.m. thursday through saturday. it is just a 30-minute different, but we heard from a

lot of restaurateur's that it is a very challenging environment to get people out by a certain time because of the way people dying. that extra minutes does make a difference. commissioner antonini: i was only a couple of times at the previous restaurant, but i liked it. and i think the setting is very good. it is one of many restaurants that are located on the streetcar lines. i think it adds to the ambiance because you see them when you go by. it also adds to the accessibility. it is very convenient, and i think it is important to have the later hours. i live in the general vicinity of west portal and we have a lot of nice restaurants there. but they closed pretty early usually. your little challenged in food lead there. -- challenged getting food late there.

i think this will suit the sponsor as well as the opponents on this. i'm very supportive. commisioner miguel: the reputation of the restaurant is excellent, particularly as commissioner borden mentioned. i am fully in support of the hours as proposed in the motion. however, take a look at condition 14, which is the hours of operation. it says it will be a full- service restaurant and bar, but limited to the following hours. they put the new hours in and in the sentence after that, it says the mall restaurant operations will cease by 1230 & -- 12:30 a.m. pitcher reid restaurant and bar.

in needs to be consistent -- it should read restaurant and bar. it needs to be consistent so that nobody has a problem. >> thursday through saturday until 1:00 a.m. and then the rest of the week until 12:30 a.m. >> any other questions? >> the city attorney is trying to address you. >> commissioners, i believe the project sponsor's ask for it to be open until 130 a m knack -- 1:30 a.m.? no, 1:00 a.m., ok. commissioner wu: a originally you have proposed the 12:30 p.m. closing time. can you give me a sense of how you came to that time? >> it kind of provides somewhat

of a middle ground, seeing that this is a small-scale commercial district. we discuss what our recommendation is and possibly coming back again for the additional hours. commissioner wu: i do not have any problems with the motion as stated. president fong: could you call the question please? >> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval with the hours until 12:30 a.m. sunday to wednesday and 1:00 a.m. thursday through saturday and with the conditions to include a restaurant and bar. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commisioner miguel: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye.

president fong: aye. that motion passed unanimously you are now on 6909 geary boulevard. >> the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization at 6909 geary boulevard. it is a proposal to convert commercial space into a self service specialty food establishment on the ground floor of a four-story mixed use building. it would serve crepes and ice cream and consist of a dining area with three tables at 65 service counter area, restroom, and storage. -- 6 ft. of service counter area, restaurant, and storage. no changes to the building are proposed. an estimated four employees will

operate the food establishment. the proposed establishment will be independently and locally owned and is not considered a formula of retail use. the project site is located on the site -- the southwest corner of geary boulevard and 30 fifth avenue and is -- is within the commercial requestor district. it is a corner lot with approximately 100 ft. of frontage on 30th avenue and 100 ft. of frontage on geary boulevard. the building was built in 2006. it would occupy one of the six commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor of the building. the other tenant spaces include two small self-service restaurants, a full service restaurant, a dry cleaning store, and a self-service specialty food establishment. as of today, the department has received two phone calls from the adjacent property on geary

boulevard in opposition to the project. their main concerns are related to double parking and trash generated from existing food establishments in the subject building and are not related to the proposed use. brenden, staff is looking into whether these concerns are in violation of the existing condition of approval for adjacent uses. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant conditional use authorization to allow a self- service specialty food establishment in the planning code. the department recommends approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. it would occupy vacant commercial space and will enhance the diversity of the neighborhood by allowing a new business in the area. it is a neighborhood -- it is within it neighborhood serving you -- use.

it would be consistent with the zoning of the district and meet all applicable requirements of the planning code. this concludes staff presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >president fong: project sponsor? >> that afternoon. my name is suzann low and i'm here to represent the honor. this is her first attempt to open a business and we're here to answer any questions or comments. >> good morning to all of the planning commission. i am the owner of i-crepes, which mainly sells grapes and ice cream and egg cups. i'm here to answer any concerns you might have for a conditional use location.

may i have suzann next to me to speak on behalf of me? president fong: of course. >> thank you. >> commissioners, are there any comments or concerns? >> we will call for public comment and then we have some questions. president fong: at this time is there any public comment on this item? >> as a neighbor, this building already has a full restaurant in there. right now, my labor -- the

furniture store is not open. the clothing store is ok. my two -- my two daughters already have three restaurants. and all high-school students, sometimes they drop food in my hallway. if they open a small restaurant , it will make my house more dirty and more unsafe. we are always in front of my house.

that is why we disagree to the opening of the restaurant. it for the eating or the smell are everything. the high-school students, their smoking in there, loud, everything. it is a bother for us. >president fong: any additional public comment? >> [unintelligible] president fong: commissioners? commissioner moore: this is an interesting problem. we always encouraged that at the bottom of a new building we have small entrepreneurs. on the other hand, i do

understand the residents' concerns, as these places might, indeed, increase -- the sidewalk will be less clean. we can see that there is an enforcement program of cleaning the sidewalks, the stores doing it together. if we could have a condition where the new operator is specifically encouraged that when people go outside to eat their stuff, that there is immediate cleanup. that is typical of other parts of the city where we do the same thing. i would be very much in favor of approving a ban. -- approving it then. >> we have added condition no. 7, sidewalk maintenance. right now, it's as the sidewalk

will be maintained, and the entrance to the building will be maintained, to be clean and sanitary. are you asking for additional? >> i would like to have an hour of frequency in there. it could be once a week, once a month, whenever. but in some cases come -- i remember a place in the mission where there was a sandwich shop with heavy traffic coming and going. there was the condition of someone going out there every two hours or so. and we need to remind the neighbors in a positive and encouraging way that there is a residential building above and that the city does not have additional sidewalk sweeper's on call to take care of the sidewalk. you have to do it yourself. wherever we find acceptable and what language we have used for others, that is what i would like to see your. president fong: commissioner

miguel. commisioner miguel: i have a high school directly across the street from my house. unfortunately, there are not any fast-food restaurants in the immediate neighborhood, but it still gets letters. i know the area extremely well. and you have both washington high school and presidio junior high. the same situation has occurred over the years periodically on balboa, the other end of washington high school. the merchants in that area, particularly food merchants, have had to get together and literally pound on the door of the high school principal and that staff in order to get anything done and at times, have actually had students get out and do the cleanup.

i would make a suggestion. i cannot enforce it, but i would make a suggestion. if you would talk to your clients and have them get together with the other fast- food restaurants that are directly adjacent to them, and call on washington high school, as a group, and tell them their students are causing a problem. it has to be done periodically. the school does something -- you have to do it again. it would be an indication that

there are students, over which the schools do have some immediately -- and needed control, are causing problems for the neighborhood. the kids want the restaurants. the schools want the restaurants. that is excellent for the neighborhood. but they have to get together in order to get some operation -- cooperation. the zero as a group and discuss it with the school and see what -- got together as a group and discuss it with the school and see what can be done. >> thank you. commissioner borden: i am also very familiar, i used to live in the district. you mentioned that you are looking into actions, can you talk about that? >> there are to use is at the

property that had previous conditional use authorizations. it is for -- there is a self service specialty yogurt shop around the corner. we have to figure out whether or not those are in violation. commissioner borden: i would offer adding language -- i am not sure if you would want to do it -- but around loitering. non consumption loitering. i know there is a little bit of that issue of blocking garages and other things. maybe they could encourage something like that. she mentioned people blocking the gates. also, perhaps, i know they have to do -- can we ask them to put

a trash can outside of their business? >> i think there would be open to that, yes. commissioner sugaya: i want to clarify the sidewalk language. i do not think these guys should be responsible for what their neighbors are doing. the implication is that it says "and all sidewalks of budding the property -- abutting the property." can you tell me how far it that those? i do not think it is their responsibility to do that. >> that means that it is what in

front of their storefront. >> are they on the eastern side? >> anyway. it would seem if there is a problem, staff is already looking into whether or not the conditions are being enforced by the other establishments. i noticed that applies -- the sidewalk cleanup would apply to the two conditioner uses? >> possibly so. the sidewalk man's condition -- maintenance condition is typical to food establishments. >> there are four restaurants.

>> the property owner is not here today, right? >> no. >> it seems like a little bit should fall upon the property owner. commissioner moore: i take issue with the loitering. i do not think that is part of what the planning code allows us to do. it is a different discussion. i would support commissioner miguel's suggestion that the business association or the businesses themselves have some conversation with the high school to participate as more active participants in the over all appearance of the neighborhood. i cannot support loitering because that has a whole different set of implications. >> ok. commissioner antonini: i am a

supporter of -- i am supportive of the comments by the other commissioners. you have a lot of disposable products, i would think, that lend themselves to disposable packaging. it is really important that the restaurant make sure and police the area and make sure their patrons know not to letter. if they do letter, it is cleaned up. we see this a lot and this seems like, in some places, there is a big pile of litter on the ground and nothing in the garbage cans. i think we need education on the use of garbage cans. i certainly support the project, but it is just making sure that the neighborhood is not trashed. this would go for the existing

establishments also. >> made the offer something like facebook checked in and throw away your garbage? commissioner sugaya: there was a mention of a trash can on the sidewalk. can you do that? >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> it is illegal. >> usually, they have it right in front of their door. >> all right. >> i see them all the time. >> anyway, the other good thing is that this is the furthest to the west. all of their trash will blow to the other storefronts.

commissioner wu: on the other condition, the community liaison, i need to ask that it is very clear to the neighbors to the community liaison is and that they have someone they can call when there is an issue. >> ok. there is a public trash can right outside the store. there are four bus stops there. there is a trash bin right next to the bus station. the store owner does plan to but a 65-gallon trash bin at right next to her entrance. " i believe a motion was made.

no? >> i do not have a motion. >> i move approval. >> second. >> the conditions are as proposed? >> yes. the motion on the floor is for approval with conditions as proposed on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. commissioner wu: aye. you are now on item number 11. the transit center district plan.

these are for initiation. initiation of amendment to the general plan. initiation of the amendment to the planning code. initiation of amendment to the zoning map. commissioner sugaya: i have to ask the board for accuse so. i did -- recusant. i did discuss this with the city attorney's office. because the firm i worked on and worked on the survey, which resulted in information being used any environmental impact report, back in that same situation i was with the eastern neighborhoods plan and market october yet -- market octavia. that was because of the participation, i am conflicted on the eir. until the eir is certified, i

cannot participate in the discussion on the zoning aspects of the transit center plan. once it has been certified, without my participation, i am free to participate in this aspect of the deliberations. >> motion for accusal. >> motion to recuse commissioner sugaya. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the planning department. we are here at an important point in the history of the very important project. before i -- before we give the details of the actions that we are asking you to take, i would like to give a brief history of

the project that is in front of you. how we got here and why the department believes this is a good time to move forward with this project. before i got here, of course, i inherited this project. the plan was initiated by the department in response to the city and county is interagency transbay working group. that the group, at that point, in 2006, recommended a multifaceted strategy for financing high-capacity transit station at the site of the terminal. real-estate development was a key component at that time with the goal of land value capture as a major part, not the only parts, of the strategy.

high-density -- it was also a key recommendation of the 1985 plan. san francisco has known for nearly 30 years that building high-density around the terminal was the right thing to do. we probably knew that well in advance of most cities in the u.s. at that time. that recommendation has always been a part of the downtown plan. in 2007, date issued a development competition for the terminal and power site. that competition did anticipate the city's tallest buildings. in 2007, the department began the planning effort in partnership with the redevelopment agency. that effort focused on what is a small part of downtown around

the terminal on the south market. there was extensive public outreach to the community. a full draft of the plan was issued for public comment in 2009. the eir was begun in earnest. we have been at this for a long time. the plan was issued two years ago. initiation of a series of actions that would allow you to take action on the eir. in general, please see four goals of the plan. one is to generate revenue for the terminal and the tunnel. the terminal is under construction and the tunnel is planned and cleared environmentally, but not yet fully funded. this plan represent a significant component of that fund the project. secondly is to implement the downtown plan.