90% substance-abuse problems. 35% of mental-health problems. all of them financial problems, plus they bring in another 100 or 200 for evaluation and then they throw them out on topolk street. they are there now, congregating all over the place. you can go and see for yourself. there panhandling. i went to look at this restaurant and the rate sitting there on the street just squatting there on the street. what's going to happen when people go to those windows and pull out money to pay for items. they're going to be panhandling and snatching money. right now, they snatched phones and everything else. it's a high crime area. we don't need any more of this. besides, the people coming in at night going to the clubs, that's just going to add to it.

it's going to be closing at 9:00. his original plan, and i spoke with him when he first opened, he wanted to be open until 4:00 in the morning. the zoning would allow him to be open until 2:00 but he says he will be open until mind. he will probably be opened -- he would probably stay open until 2:00 and what -- if he chose. i don't think we ought to start down the path to open this up to even more problems. he would be covering himself because they're not going into his restaurant, but on the street, he's not going to be able to control the people who were there. i would like to say also that the remarks about not doing any thing on polk street, i have been involved there for years and it's the lower polk

neighbors who are approving these and it's going to cause even more problems. as far as the trees are concerned, there's no dirt under polk street. that is sidewalk encroachment. they are not maintained in the street is not cleaned and all the money given to these organizations come they're not doing their job. i recommend you do not approve this for the safety of everybody, including the restaurant, the people to go there to shop and other people frequenting other places. this is going to be a mess. [tone] >> i may resident within two and

a half blocks of the cafe and i also on the business within the same block. i own three more within three blocks. i have never opposed anything in front of the planning commission, however i have voted first to agree to the takeout window. but after talking to some of my neighbors and three other restaurants, they are all opposing it. some of them didn't think it was a good idea for the neighborhood. this restaurant can accommodate a takeout section with no extra expense. i do not see how i takeout window will benefit our block, our community. it is bad enough when you walk sometimes, you have to sidestep the sidewalk because people

congregating. i have personally called the authorities to remove the homeless are less fortunate from congregating on the sidewalk and drinking. for anyone who says polk street is a safe, quiet, wonderful street, maybe they need to spend a couple of hours in my establishment to know what i'm talking about, having to do with people trying to use the bathroom or not customers, having employees who have been accosted, i do not serve any hard liquor. i've been in that neighborhood for over a year now. i have never had any issues there, but i think a window, a takeout window is not a good thing for our block.

i will leave on this issue where 10 people in that room got 10 votes and i do not think it reflects the whole community. if we can to get a continuance on this item and get an approval from every restaurant on that corner within three blocks, do we allow windows for everyone to have? is that what we want in that area? thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to speak on behalf of myself and them taking time off for my city job to testify. i'm a resident who lives approximately 300 feet from the business location and i fully support the project and hope it will activate a portion of the

street that will act -- that is lacking activity. the proprietor took over a troubled location and has created a restaurant that's highly regarded by support his endeavor. president fong: i have a speaker card with no name that says lower pulp neighbors. >> -- i am the chairman of the lower polk neighbors. we have found them to be a good neighbor. they have changed a bad business into a nice business. they are involved with the community and i have to say listening to all of this, i don't know how you guys listen to all of the-doom and gloom of what is happening on polk street. there are a lot of positive things going on. i'm getting depressed listening

to it and i live there and it's not the same as i am hearing. we do support it. they have been good neighbors. they do not sell alcohol. the community does support it. president fong: is there any additional public comment on this item? >> i have lived in this neighborhood for 13 years and i have seen everything, every transition and has gone through. i just moved away in june of last year and every time i go back, just within the year, it's like night and day. it is unbelievable how much nicer it is down there. the business he owns is a fabulous business. but it was an abandoned grocery store for ever. if you are worried about what goes on in lowerpolk street. not people frequenting the

business. you remember black tar heroin and what was like just 10 years ago. it is night and day but he's part of the reason why. he does not want to take credit for a much better that corner is but it is because of him. his business is a community business. it's a family business. people to go in there are families. it's not just people who are transitional in the neighborhood. i think it's a great idea. president fong: any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i have been in the place and it operates very well. i have known all of the transitions probably from the late '40's on and every 5 years, it's never the same street.

we have seen a few instances where people were questioning take out windows. i remember the one on lower 24th street, one of the most successful done a shops in san francisco and has activated that street. there's probably just as much foot traffic along there as there is on this section. the very fact it's going to activate the street bands people who are willing to patronize the stores to me is an absolute positive. i am going to move to approve with one additional condition. that would be the takeout window not operate past 9:00 p.m.

i don't care how early it open. i'm putting that condition in as something that we have often done for food establishments where there are questions as to later night or late-night eating. you can come back to us at some time if you wish, if you decide you want to open until midnight and see if that condition could be changed. but at the moment, because of the situation on polk street. hopefully it will improve, but in deference to the neighborhood, that additional condition should be open. commissioner antonini: i would be in support of that and this sounds like a perfectly proper use. there have been comments about some of the problems that could be associated with the takeout

window, but those are problems that existed prior to the establishment of the takeout window. i'm happy to hear from one person who testified that things have improved in the last year because a year or so or more, a couple of times walking along that street, certainly in daylight still, it was kind of a scary situation. the people who were potential coster's and loitering were not bridge and tunnel folks -- maybe they do come later in the night and cause disruptions but these would be semi permanent residence on the street, unfortunately. that is hopefully getting better. i don't see any reason not to approve this. the other issues are going to be there regardless and those are the things we have to deal with separate from this particular establishment. commissioner moore: i have to

assume that someone operates a successful restaurant, it is in their interest not to diminish the quality of that extra. should the window be disruptive to his own operation, sure he would do something about it. i'm very comfortable with seeing this happen. i support the idea of for starters, closing at 9:00. i am in full support. commissioner borden: i am supportive but i would feel bad if he has to go to another conditional use process and i wish there was a way to create some flexibility. i think if it's an establishment for families, it sounds like t e families and one of the advantages of having a walk up window are the people you might not want in your family friendly environment would use the walkup window for a variety of reasons.

my other concern is my experience with the chestnut street area try and all, one of the things that helped that a lot is the pizza place that's open until the 3:00 -- open until 3:00 in the morning. when you have a lot of stumbling, drunk people, they need food and one of the nice things about pizza place being in an active area, it gets crowded. we approved one year ago and expansion because they needed to expand. i don't believe they serve alcohol but the point is if there is an issue of people consuming too much, it's advantageous to have a place for people to get something to eat and that's one of the things that does concern me because i see that as an issue. the closest late-night place i can think of is this take place a few blocks away.

that's my only thing. which was a way to create flexibility to figure out how that might be possible. commissioner wu: i want to echo the comments that there were a number of neighborhood issues brought up with loitering or sitting on the sidewalk. but when we look for ways to improve our streets, that we look for ways to bring activities that we want to see and i think a walk up window add to that. >> the motion on the floor is for approval with an additional condition that the takeout window not operate past 9:00. on that motion --

[roll-call] thank you. that motion passes unanimously. we can now start the regular calendar with item number 10. for 827 pacific ave. >> good afternoon. this case is a request for conditional use authorization to relocate the infusion clinic for chinese hospital to the second floor of the existing building at 827 pacific avenue, a chinatown residential commercial district. these would occupy 2800 square feet of floor area. the chinese hospital's radiology center is relocating to the building basement and remainder the first floor would be used for health insurance offices. the project was identified in the most recent institutional master plan that was accepted by

the planning commission on may 19, 2011. what the proposed uses part of chinese hospital, this is a standalone project a separate utilities from the chinese hospital replacement project. the relocation of the infusion center is necessary regardless of the reconstruction of the main hospital facilities. the project has been included in the draft environmental impact report was removed once the zoning administrator determine the project need not be included in the proposed special use district being created for the hospital replacement project. a second categorical exemption was issued for this project. the department has not received any public comment regarding the project and the department recommends approval with conditions as it is consistent with a general plan policies and objective -- and objectives and complies with the planning code.

i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> project sponsor. >> thank you. i'm the chief operating officer for chinese hospital. i'm here as we are complying for a conditional use and it is the development of the second floor for an infusion center and our special the clinic. it's a relocation of those services from chinese hospital and i'm here asking for your support of this conditional use and your approval. thank you. >> i have one speaker card.

any public comment on this item? public comment portion is closed. commissioner wu: i'm supportive of this project. hospital serves many residents in the neighborhood. this project is able to rehab or upgrade a building internet tower. the buildings are very old and many in the neighborhood have been looking for ways to do these kinds of upgrades that maintain the character of the neighborhood, so i think this is a great example of that kind of project and would make a motion to approve the condition. commissioner antonini: i think this was a very good project and was separated from thesud which

will be coming to this and this only makes sense. they need more space than this creates valuable space in the existing chinese hospital, so i'm totally in favor. president fong: any additional comment? >> the motion before you is to approve this project with conditions as proposed on the motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. we can move to number 11, the van ness bus rapid transit

project. >> we have some speakers to give you an informational presentation on the van ness bus rapid transit project. this has been planned for many years and the planning department has involved in several ways. we have done urban design studies for the corridor at three locations admission and market, city hall and we have helped the agencies to develop evaluation criteria for various alternatives and we participated in the technical review committee as well and this project has been reviewed many times by the directors working group, which is a number of department heads that meet monthly. we are pleased to see it before any of several folks in the audience who have been working on this project. the deputy director will speak for most of the presentation.

thank you. >> thank you. thank you for this opportunity. we very much appreciate being able to be here to present an update on the project. this body has requested updates at has requested development for rapid transit over all in the city and we appreciate that and recognize the critical integration between the transportation and transit performance in our overall city development goals. we appreciate your leadership and helping us develop our smart growth plan. i would like to recognize commissioner boredom's support of proposition k. she was the vice chair at time --

i would also like to acknowledge the planning department staff who contributed to the overall development of the policy framework as well as our partners who have been with us since the beginning and will design and build a project. our long time project manager has moved on to another assignment but i am happy to introduce michael schwartz who has taken over and he will be presenting on the at bay, particularly the exciting news about a locally preferred alternative which the two agencies staffs are jointly recommending to our various boards next week. >> thank you. i may transportation planner with the transportation authority. a few weeks ago, i said i would be back to provide an update. we have more extensive details

and i appreciate going back to the expenditure plan. this project has a long history in san francisco. van ness is one of the key links in the rapid network being reviewed as part of the transit effect of this project and this is a key component. it's one of the first out of the gate. in addition to the partnership with an eta, we have been working with a lot of city agencies. puc,dpw. we have applied for federal funds. many agencies are involved in this project and we are at a very exciting stage.

just to go back to what is the purpose of the project? i probably don't need to remind the commission but the main reason is to improve the reliability of the 47 and 49 along van ness ave as luck -- as well as the golden gate buses as well. this shows the frequency of buses as they arrive at market street. they're scheduled to come every seven to eight minutes. you can see as of today, it is pretty flat. you are as likely to get a bus 14 minutes apart for one minute with serious bus bunching. we want to improve the reliability and increase ridership. we want to install countdown signals come audible signals, reducing left turns. as one of the highest causes of collisions as well is a pedestrian lighting element.

we want to enhance the urban design of the street to unify the corridor and because its u.s. 101, we need to accommodate a number of people moving through by transit and other methods. we want to see the multi-modal corridor continue to function. a quick reminder of what this is -- it's a combination of transit features. you have probably seen various bits and pieces like a dedicated transit lane or low floor buses, something we're planning to procure systemwide. this is level boarding so you can roll straight across onto the bus. when you get all of these features together, you get. this really creates a new mode of transit in san francisco that is much more train-like at a

fraction of the cost and delivery time. we did circulate a draft environmental document in november and december of 2011. we are required to evaluate all raise the alternatives. there's a no build alternative that would look a what happened with the project in the future. there were two centerline options and there were designed options as part of the center line alternative that would further reduce the left turns. the design option would reduce that to one in each direction. a quick look at the visualization -- this is alternative #two. the buses would run in a similar plane as they do today. under alternative no. 2, it

would be buses only. the platforms would come 8 feet out from the sidewalk into the street. it would retain parking wherever feasible. transit signal priority -- the branded vehicles and pedestrians save the elements i described previously as well as a replacement of the overhead contact system which represents street lights and you will see the pedestrian lighting element representative in nature. they have action not gone into a state of design. alternative no. 3 as the buses running where the median is today. this would involve full removal of the median and separates the buses from traffic. it requires reconfiguration of the median and has two smaller medians for all of the corridor which limits the planting of opportunities. it is supposed to show that there is a limited planting palette due to the smaller

median. under alternative no. 4, the buses run and the left most troubling. the difference is the buses have doors on both sides. big load from the left side along the van ness corridor and continue into the mission and load again from the right side. the findings show we were able to meet the purpose of the project. we project it will have significant. -- significant improvement in travel time. we are maintaining a person thruput, a similar number of people are moving through the court or. because the buses are able to move more quickly through the corridor, we can keep the same frequency with your actual vehicles. there's an actual cost savings potential. that's an important thing for mta and all transit riders. finally, the improvement in multi modal safety, less left

turns, the pedestrian countdown, we see it achieving many of those goals. there was one area of significant and unavoidable impact and that is traffic circulation. we looked at 140 different intersections. we found in 2015, there were three significant an unavoidable impact. however, there are a similar number of impacts operating at a lower level, so the project isn't having any additional intersections operating. in 2035, due to be significant background growth, things like the hospital in this area and city-wide, we know we need to look at significant changes to help people get in and around the city. but due