i think there is a good argument if there is legitimate food service going on, sometimes it supplements some of the drinking. people go to eat after they have had a few drinks. and the tobacco part in my motion i would remove that. it sounds like it will be hard to enforce as is pointed out. so essentially the staff position i believe. >> just to clarify, if i understood correctly. you would recommend that there within 100 feet be prohibited. that's different from the staff recommendation. that you can still apply for that c.u. within 100 feet. but we would recommend disapproval. >> i think we should have the 100 feet barrier there, particularly for the bars. maybe a restaurant, maybe a modified restaurant could try to do within 100 feet. but the bars not allowed within

100 feet of another. >> so if prohibited outright they could not apply. and that's different from the staff recommendation. >> that would be our preference, to have the prohibition within the 100 feet. >> yeah, for bars. >> right, not including restaurants. >> commissioner sagaya. >> i will second that. >> in the 100 feet it's not addressing the problem, and it's an overconcentration of 6 blocks. and whether this is a block within that six blocks. you can't put new ones. it doesn't necessarily address the issue. i don't know what the 100 feet gets us. i would be more open to the ban. the outright ban in the rud.

with that sunset in two years or three years, when we have to take a break from bars and restaurants and reevaluate that after three years. >> commissioner borden. >> i take a different tact, if we do an outright prohibition. i look at rush street that has restaurants and those are not the liquor licenses. some people feel too many restaurants; right. that's a different story. but my point is that all liquor licenses are not created equal. and the nuisance created by them is not equal. by abc's basic rules. the entire city and county of san francisco is oversaturated. we have way more liquor licenses than what the code says. you could theoretically go anywhere in the neighborhood and put an out-right prohibition of

100 feet. and you could. if you are talking about saturati saturation, that point is pretty much everywhere. that's why i don't think you want to go with an out-right ban. and it's the practice of those establishments. and distinguishing those places that are bars versus restaurants. and some are providing a different experience than others. some are nuisances and some are. and the bigger issue that we went to, we can't determine what is hot and not. and that creates a nuisance. and those people with huge lunch crowds it's a nuisance. but it's a different kind of nuisance, while people are standing in front in their property. that's why i don't think that makes sense, you could ban that everywhere in the city.

>> commissioner. >> the issues are specific to this particular area. and that's why the legislation came up in the first place. is it isn't like it's all over the city, i understand commissioner borden's argument. i understand it's to the neighborhood and why i like commissioner hill's approach. in other neighborhoods things have changed and then the neighborhood said we should add a few more restaurants along chestnut street, for example. i think we should allow more restaurants along filmore and those evolved when the neighborhood complained about the proliferation of bars and restaurants. and then five or 10 years later things have evolved. and people are saying, that's

then and this is now. and we need to re-examine it and change it. and what i think what commissioner hillus is trying to do, maybe we cannot anticipate the change. but maybe in five years it will have changed and we can re-examine the situation at that time. commissioners may i respond to one point that commissioner sugaya made. how to craft this legislation is language the lines of operators and how existing operators are performance in -- performing in an area. the concern of a ban you are not giving an opportunity -- only the existing operators who could be bad operators in some cases

can be open. and you are setting up the ban. we are not addressing the bad operators but preventing good operators in the future. that's partly why we came up with this disapproval that acknowledging the proximity and giving the commission the oversight to look at more specific issues with potential new applicants. i just wanted to point that out. >> thank you. >> commissionera anan anant - commissioner antonini. >> i stand behind what was said that sometimes you award new ones to come in and maybe more refined. maybe a little more under control. and then otherwise you are dealing with the ones before. and they are not threatened by a

competitor that could be putting a better product out for everyone. so i did not to keep from proliferation and went with the 100 feet. >> commissioner. >> i like staff's argument but we don't know who the next bar will be. and we probably authorized those c.u.'s for the ones that are the problem. allowing more competition is fine. but no guarantee that the next person coming along and we give a c.u. according to the staff proposal. isn't going to end up a year later bussing in people from sf state. or something like that. i don't know if that's where they come from. but in any case i am leaning towards commissioner antonini's

motion or mr. hillus' idea. >> let's talk about that. commissioner hillus. >> just a clarification. i more interested in the sunseting than the 100 feet very the ban. if you look at your map, the 100 feet is in essence a ban. from pine. because you have to look at lower polk from pine to o'farrell. if this map is correct, are there places that you can get a liquor license and kind of the lower polk area? >> you can. >> i just put on the overhead the image that includes the buffer of 100 feet. may be less confusing than the one that shows 300 and 100 and 150. >> okay, but the rud is just covering pine to o'farrell;

right? >> the rud is from o'farrell to california. i think 100 feet prohibition would allow new permits to come in. essentially south of post and then on the side streets of polk. so it would allow. and given any existing licenses transferred to other locations within this area, or outside. that would also open up the possibility for new permits to come in. >> right. >> okay. i think the 100 feet is somewhat arbitrary in bad actors or good a actors or competition. but more importantly we should revisit this and we have seen this happen with neighborhoods and bars within 100 feet and doesn't work and revisit it. >> i agree that the sunset is

appropriate. and something that we should add in. i think that the timing of the sunset, we should decide if three or five years, that appropriate time. as i mentioned our residents do prefer an out-right prohibition in the six block region overall. but our small businesses are afraid that's too restrictive. and want to see something that could address the saturation issue and allow new permits to come in. that's overall one strategy to strike a balance. we propose the original ban, the ban in the six-block region. we support our neighborhood association in pushing for that. but of course if there are other ways to strike a balance. and it seems like city control of 100 feet. maybe it's too arbitrary or needs to be another number, but we would be willing to find a

way to strike the balance. >> commissioner wu. >> yes, i am supportive of the motion as it stands. this idea of the buffere bufferk that the department is to prevent the situation where we have an out-right ban and has to come back in five or 10 years. maybe a sunset could be okay, it could be explored. but if you have an out-right ban and a liquor license. it's worth so much. immediately you making that because of transferability. i don't want to give that to the current operators who many of them seem like they are not really behaving appropriately. i do support the ban within 100 feet and the fee. >> commissioner. >> the representatives and represents of supervisor chiu, a three-year sunset and after the

three years it has to come back to the planning commission whether reinstated or lifted. >> i think if you do that, you ask for a report or something. >> there would have to be a report. >> there would have to be something tangible to decide. >> the neighbors will react to that. >> right, but i think it would be useful to identify the blocks or lots or the bad actors; right. let's be honest. that's what people really want. >> i think it keeps the dialogue alive. and the new operators and the old operators know in three years there a look-back and evaluated. would that be okay with the seconder? >> okay. >> three year sunset. >> okay. >> commissioners, on that motion

for additional -- excuse me, to adopt a resolution recommending approval with the modifications that additional emphasis on enforcement be included. a prohibition on new bars located within 100 feet of another existing bar. that new bars outside of 100 feet would require a conditional use authorization. and new restaurants would require a conditional use authorization. that the 12 a.m. limit be restricted but restaurants are required to continue food service until closing and removing the tobacco component with the three year sunset returning to the planning commission. >> and we have the three year abandonment. >> and the three-year abandonme abandonment. >> is that everything? >> i have a restaurant question,

if a restaurant under this legislation comes through c.u., don't we still have the discretion to dictate the closing time? >> yes. >> so we could decide to close at 12. >> yes we could do that. >> on that motion. antonini. aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> fong. >> aye. >> so moved. commissioners that motion passes unanimously. commissioners under item 11, for case 2.055 u for 2001 market street. >> good afternoon, adam omara from the department staff. the item before you is in-kind

agreement for the market project. before we begin our staff presentation i think that supervisor weiner is here and would like to say a few words. >> please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. you will see me on the next item too. thanks for having me today. i am here today to speak in strong support of the proposed in-kind agreement relating to 2001 market and dolores. this is a much needed pedestrian upgrade for this area. it appropriately balances improved pedestrian safety with traffic flow in the area. it's a unique opportunity that we will not have gone -- will

not have again to do this upgrade. i support it. we talk a lot in san francisco of improving pedestrian safety. we have a lot of great plans for different parts of the city that are sitting on the shelf collecting dust. because we usually don't have the funding to implement those pedestrian upgrades. be they belts or sidewalk expansions or whatever they are. and we have a problematic process of delivering pedestrian upgrades. as a side note on tuesday i implemented the delivery of pedestrian projects more efficiency. back to the funding. funding is always an issue. regardless of your process of the uppermarket plan that was approved a number of years ago is a wonderful plan that envisions significant pedestrian

improvement. more walkable and livable streets in the upper market area. it's a wonderful document. and we had almost no money to actually implement. now that development is happening in the upper market area, and now that the economy has come back to life. we have those opportunities. and this is the first one coming before the commission before i recall. today you have the opportunity to set us on course. brief background for this in-kind. the planning department proposed reducing the entire block of dolores between market and 14th to one lane of thru-traffic. i did not support that proposal, neither did a lot of people. because i believe that would have had a negative impact on traffic flow. and that was not the right balance. planning department went back to

the drawing board and came up with a better plan, and that is before you today. it strikes a better balance. it reduces dolores lane briefly and then quickly expands back into the full two lanes. this will create a significant benefits at market and dolores. first if you ever walked that intersection or driven by it. it's an incredibly wide, long pedestrian crossing. one of the longest in the area. it's not a pedestrian friendly crossing. as this area becomes more active. it will be more important that we reduce that crossing. so that people are able to get across the intersection safely. and it will create a beautiful new usable plaza.

at market and dolores at the 2100 development. this will be a center of gravity for the upper market area. there is not as much activity because not as much housing or retail in the area, apart from safeway. once you get east of church street towards octavia. we will see that changinging and this is more important to create this new, great public space. this proposal has the support of market-octavia and the board of supervisors. triangle neighborhood association that initially thought that the previous plan was before you. is now as i understand it supporting the upgrade. i acknowledge that the mission dolores neighborhood association does not support the plan.

i respect the organization and their opposition but i don't agree as i have stated. this is a good plan and i ask for your support. >> thank you, additional staff comment? >> and we have a brief presentation if i can hand that out. so again the planning staff. i want to give a bit of context and the supervisor touched on this. this is not a new idea, it's an idea that has been around since the market-octavia plan and the better neighborhoods program. and that was built around the idea of doing holistic planning for neighborhoods. particularly neighborhoods with rich transportation choices and creating complete neighborhoods with all the service and

amenities to go with that. so that program set up these eight elements of what creates a complete or great neighborhood. that each community should be a full-service neighborhood with full-complemented city services and open space where daily needs can be met within a short and safe walk. and we build on a special character of each neighborhood in the city. and one of the first plans the market-octavia plan. and that involved public outreach, it was an eight-year planning process. that i am sure that many of you were involved. and it led to recommendations that addressed the project before you today. particularly providing safe and comfortable pedestrian access and allowing people to walk to their daily shops and services.

it was noted on the bottom of the slide, this was a design of this intersection that considered extending the median. and this design picks up on that. and that's part of the origin of improving these conditions at this intersection. and as supervisor weiner mentioned this was included in the upper market planning process. that held stakeholder workshops and held before this commission in 2008. here you can see some recommendations that came out of that process. these are the top priorities per sidewalks and open spaces. the sidewalks would be engaging. that we improved pedestrian crosses and greening and public space. i think that the plan before you illustrates a number of those recommendations in action. that plan also considered a number of intersection

improvements for all the upper market intersections from i believe octavia all the way to castro street. including this intersection not pictured in this slide. and lastly i wanted to mention, this project and the work that goes into it is consistent with our ongoing work of the city to improve pedestrian safety. and including the better street plans and the recent work on mayor's task force on pedestrian safety. this map is from the department of public health showing severe pedestrian collisions and identifying the high pedestrian corridors, and market and octavia are on that. and the red x's that has severe pedestrian injuries, and this intersection has a history of that as well. and with that background i will

turn it over to talk about the specifics of the project and is the action item before you are. >> good afternoon commissioners. in my presentation today i am going to touch on a little bit of background on in-kind agreements. and go in more details about the proposed improvements. and talk about why we think they are a good use of the market-octavia impact piece. and talk about the outreach process and the maintenance plan for these improvements. a little about the background on the in-kind agreements. the project on market-octavia is an area plan required to pay impact fees. alternatively they can provide infrastructure improvements and (inaudible) portions of their impact fees. in that case if i want to go

through that route, there needs to be an in-kind agreement between the department and the spons sponsor. in 2011 this commission pursued such agreements. and as part of that procedure, project sponsors need to seek planning commission approval for the waiver of the impact fee, the amount of the impact fee that is equal to the amount of the proposed improvements. that's why we are here today for the 2001 market project. this project was approved in 2011. and includes an 8-story mixed-use building, and 82 dwelling units. and approximately 31,000 square foot grocery space will be whole food's market. this project was required to pay

935,000, and of this amount the project sponsor is interested in providing infrastructure improvements for the intersection of market street and dolores street. equal to $510,000. of their impact fees. and this is before you today is a waiver for such amount in return for the provision of those improvements. now i want it talk more about the improvements. if you go back to the presentation. the improvements includes pedestrian safety and traffic calming amenities. and these improvements would improve the pedestrian safety at an intersection as was mentioned p for pedestrians. and it will create a vibrant and public space. you see on the northwest corner, there will be a public plaza there. and that will activate that corner combined with the whole

foods market. and it will calm will traffic entering and exiting dolores street and improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. and overall it enhances the gateway to two major streets of the city. so a little more details about each of the improvements. so the public plaza is on the northwestern corner of market street and dolores street. a 13-foot bulb out. and this will include landscaping, planters, and public seating and this will create an urban plaza in this neighborhood. which will allow the public to relax and mingle. it will be a supplement to the traditional public spaces in

that neighborhood. and consistent with other urban plazas in the neighborhood. and these plazas are all available to the public. and in the public right-of-way. and there will be -- so on this map you will see the orange shows improvements that are going to be provided as a part of this in-kind agreement. so in the median there will be a pedestrian refuge and that will combined with the two bulb-outs it will significantly shorten the distance for pedestrians to cross dolores street and market street. and this bulb out, sorry this pedestrian refuge would not alter the historic fabric of the median as it's separated by two feet. there is a gap between the refuge and that arc on the

existing median. there is also going to be raised cross walk on that alley, on the east side of dolores street. that's clinton park alley. so there is a bulb out there, another 14-foot bulb out and a raised cross walk that will provide enhancement for pedestrian safety. and finally there it will be a special material for the cross walk. and that will beautify the intersection. and i wanted to clarify the road (inaudible) here as supervisor weiner mentioned. the bulb out on the northwest corner is 14 feet. but the bulb out on the intersectif