transpired with the continued opposition and appeals and i know we do have a provision in here that the clock stops if there is an appeal process and that's a good one but i think another case made was the obstacles that existed absent. the plans we now have easter neighborhood, there seems to be more of an acceptance of these plans but in those days the battles were pitched over every project. i'm going to make a motion to approve as mentioned by staff with the period extending back to one would assume 4/4/2013 if i'm drafting it correctly. >> commissioner?

>> yes. unless i missed it somewhere. the stimulus policy gets adopted today which i assume it will be adopted today. is there an expiration date on it? did i miss something or does this continue to go on? >> it would have a 60-day window. yes. >> so once the notices go out then a response is back and this is a one time deal. >> that's correct. it's a one shot deal. if you miss the 60 days then you have to go through the process. >> i would make a motion to adopt the policy and changes as is. >> i did make a motion. i didn't hear a second yet but i had a motion already. >> there was a motion on the floor. >> the ten year period.

>> right. commissioner? >> i'm somewhat indifferent to the 8-10 years. but given the scope of the recession and that you have to act, i will give it a second to 10 years. >> on the motion to extend the period to ten year period adopting both resolution? commissioner, so moved, commissioners that motion passes 4-3. >> commissioners that will place you under general comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. within the subject matter jurisdiction accept agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will

be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting . i do have one speaker card. >> general public comment. john aber link. mr. secretary if you can hand this. >> thank you. i'm president of the taco group and the neighborhood consortium. your project doesn't give us a chance to respond to the hearing to have staff respond to our comment. i'm here today to respond to what director ram said is for the cumulative impact assessment which we urgently need that the central

corridor, would be a venue. that is completely unacceptable as a process. the corridor speaker ir will not take the complete time. what gets widened and what crosswalks go and needed change to solve the problem. that's not going to work. the process that would do the job is the expansion eir, the top contributor to the entire district. the expansion eir is on roughly the same schedule but focused on the geographic area in question.

and because the city is the developer, the city can propose specific changes to pacific locations, crosswalks, sidewalks, rules and regulations that the city can then build and city can then pay for as mitigation measures. that is the process that can solve the problem. i want to be very clear. you may know we an appealed. we are going to pursue our full and legal remedies on this issue. that includes the expansion and even potentially the central quarter rezoning. the city needs to sit down with us and work out how we are going to solve the problem. we are not going to wait 2 more years for promises that will take another 3-5 years to implement the real solutions. thank you. >> linda chapman.

>> i want to address again the polk alcohol restrictions and sometimes you have when amendments were put forward to have them come back and look at them again for ramifications. i'm concerned about the direction you took but also the amendments. wilhelm wundt one of the amendments, which adds new restaurants may operate past midnight with the food thing. before that wasn't in the planning code. there was as of right, if there was no conditional use limitation placed on them, they could stay open until 2. you could place conditional use on them that said they will not stay open passed 12 as they did with poorhouse and others. is it possible that this language is going to be interpreted to

interfere with your putting an earlier restriction on when you are putting a conditional use with these new businesses. i wonder about that there was a lot of confusion about cvs because you got advice from staff and advice from the deputy city attorney that day that was confusing as to whether or not if you can put any conditions on it. when you could, you didn't. nobody else can. if they want to stay open until 2 a.m., they can, the police took a strong position to hard liquor until 2 a.m. and therefore abc could do something because of that but nobody could do something about 2 a.m.. and the other thing when you by conditional use can add more bars by an allowing bar to use it's location but the conditions will remain to

the old bar. for instance the other one that moved, it left behind it's bar. it's conditional use was still open for at least a year. it was like automatic. there was nothing abc was going to do to stop it or even add anymore conditions unless they were to their license unless there were a lot of police complaints about that specific thing. i just see like continuing march have more licenses more alcohol licenses and these restaurants closing until 2 a.m.. they stay open as night clubs. abc had a restriction. they decided they were opening until 2 a.m. as a coffee shop but now they are

selling beer. they decide they didn't want to stay open to serving food. they don't want to serve food. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners this will place you under your regular calendar and i believe president yu request both items be heard. in that case we are considering item 5 per case 2072 d 45th request for discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioners, michael smith department planning staff. we took the item off the calendar today to review more items into the action memo you have before you. here is a copy for

distribution that has a few additional items. just to clarify what we are expecting of this sponsor on this project. in paragraph under item no. 3 under commission action i have highlighted the language added and what that language does is it just clarifies that a wet bar won't be installed in the building and as well as all plumbing in the kitchen will be capped and that's how we are treating the particular structure on the property. conversely and the paragraph below. 3 b for clarification, i have struck the word or just to clarify that the sponsor can

make alterations to the building such as replace windows if need be or repair the structure. and he was concerned about that particular language. so i struck the or. and those are the only changes and this is the completion of my presentation and if you have any comments i'm here. that is the action before you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed other. >> i had a question on the back comment with no installation of wet bar and i don't know if there is a bathroom within that structure or not. wouldn't that be permitted? >> there is a bathroom in the structure and it shall remain. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner borden.

>> i have a question. i'm not sure why a wet bar specifically. i have no problem with it. i just want to understand it. i have never seen this provision before. >> it was probably issued 20 years ago. it limits to legal units. if you have a full bath and wet bar it's not long after that that you can plug in a hot plate and illegally creating a second unit. it's to prevent it from being used as a legal unit. >> that wet bar established a unit. >> there is very clear matrix that we have been using for 20 years that depending on the level of access that you have to the street, in some cases

you can have a wet bar inform this case the building is detached from the front structure. >> if it were included in the front structure, then it wouldn't be included. >> depends on the connection to the street. >> for me, it was interesting to find out. people were obviously more creative than i would realize. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the clarification of the language. i would make a motion to approve. >> on that motion to take, commissioner aye, moore, ; wu, that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on item 6 for case no. 20121413 c at 1090

union street. >> thank you, i'm elizabeth planning department staff. the planning before you is to change a store to a limited restaurant within the zoning district. this business is independently owned and not considered a formally retailed restaurant. the department has not received any opposition to the project. the project is found to be on balance and desirable. the department recommends that you prove the project with conditions. that concludes my presentation. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. good

afternoon, my name is gloria. i have been a resident since 1978 and it's always been a quiet residential neighborhood. my concern is that the new use is not really compatible with that immediate block area which is heavily residential. the prior business that occupied 1096 union street was very low traffic, quiet low key corner grocery. the summary report that i have viewed online says the new proposed limited use restaurant will augment the range of retail offerings, however one block west, we have already 8 restaurants and we have a corner grocery, 3 blocks

west is the polk street commercial district which has a myriad of restaurants. i don't object to a corner grocery store, i think we can use a second market there. my concern is that adding a restaurant will create non-residential noise from increased non-residential activity. it will attract rodents. there may be new oxious odors from referee refuse. all of these issues are evident on the corner of hyde and union street down the block. you see noise, odor, refuse on the street. the

proposed use will change the corner and i'm afraid that will crepe into surrounding areas. if you pull up a google map you will see the commercial areas along hyde street down polk street and the area where i live it's all residential, very residential. so, we have enough restaurants. the second grocery would be most appropriate. thank you. >> susan wiley and joseph. >> yes. i'm susan willie. i'm a neighbor and have been in the neighborhood for 40 years. it's very adjacent to that spot. i absolutely embrace the idea of los l.a. paloma. we need to go

down to north beach or down to polk street. you may not be old enough to remember that at one time there was such a place on east side of hyde street a little place where you can go for coffee in the morning for a snack and for those that live alone that don't like to cook dinner but don't want to go to a restaurant. there was a place like that in the 90s. i just think, i'm here for several neighbors who also work and couldn't be here who embrace the idea having such a

gathering place in our little village. thank you. joseph? >> i'm here in favor of the project. of course i'm one of the owners. >> do you care to submit your name for the record? >> joseph own ram. i have the market and have been serving that community for the last 30 years. as a native san franciscan i have always tried to serve the community and this is a continuations of one. i was presented with the opportunity from the owner of the business to take it over

and looking at the community and what was being served and the one thing i realized that a cafe as a community meeting place serving coffee and sandwiches would be highly desirable. i have in my position three pages of signatures from the neighborhood that we collected over the course of one weekend to provide for evidence of support for our project. and that's my story. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? okay. there being none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> i understand the concern but i think this is a great reuse. the market being quiet and not well patronized might be why it no longer in existence. it's a

great market. i'm very familiar with that area and the truth is in the top of the hill there are not a lot of inexpensive places to go and there aren't that many sandwich type cafe places. this is a limited restaurant. it not allowed to have alcohol as a limited restaurant. it's not going to be the loud kind of place and it's a great way to use the space. otherwise it would we main vacant. the neighborhood makes me feel it would be a great place. i'm supportive. >> i'm also supportive and glad to hear that it appears we are going to have the continued

services of a market and now we are going to have a small facility for on sale food which is nice that you are at top of one of those hills that you are not going to have to walk down a hill for one of those things. and i would be supportive for beer and wine service for evening hours. it's fine the way it is. i'm in support. >> commissioner moore? >> being a pat patron of the market, knowing the owner will do this cafe, i'm in strong support of it and wish that we had more of like. >> commissioners, on that motion to approve with conditions, commissioner, hills, moore, sag ya, fong,

aye. that passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that will place you on item 14 for case no. 2011 at 2014 hey street with retail project draft eir public hearing. please note that written comments will be accepted at the planning department on april 15, 2013. >> good afternoon before we begin this item i want to take the opportunity to introduce a member of our staff who has been with us for about two years. this will be her first appearance before you. rachel came to us after having 10 years of experience with the projects in part of a consulting firm for about 10

years and previous to that received a bs in environmental economics and policy from cal and since coming to our department she's performed extremely well and is making a vital contribution to the work of the department in the city. so please join me in welcoming rachel shaut. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong, i'm rachel shaut department staff. the item before you is on the draft environmental report or draft eir of 6th street affordable retail project. this is case no. 2011. i'm joined here today with my colleagues, the staff historic preservation and

senior environmental planner and sponsor of mercy housing as well as architecture and planning. for the proposed project would include installation of the building. which is known as the hayes ston department buildings. the construction of a new 9 story mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and housing units above and note the 14 units would be designated for developmentally disabled adults. the hotel has been identified as a contributor to the 6th street lodging which appears to be eligible for the

national historic resource. i will will is note that historic resource evaluation response for the project also found the following. the installation is considered to be super imposed upon the building and not considered a modification. therefore should be evaluated separately. that the hotel individually is not a historic resource. 3, the art installation is also not historic resource and 4, construction of the proposed project building would have a less than significant impact on the historic district since it's compatible with the character of the district. the eir identified mitigation requirement documentation. this does not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. the drafted eir recognized

impacts with implementation of mitigation measures. a hearing to receive a historic preservation on the draft was on march 18. it was largely focused on a request to evaluate an alternative which would preserve an ex- exterior of the hotel. this is not a hearing for approval or disapproval of the project. your comments should be confined to the adequacy in the analysis of the draft eir. the comments will be marked by the court reporter and make

revision to the draft eir as appropriate. i would like to remind commenters to speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter can produce an accurate of today's hearing and state their name for the record so they will be properly identified. after hearing comments from the general public we'll take any comments on the draft eir. and will continue until 5 p.m. on april 15. comments not submitted to the should be submitted to the planning department. this concludes my presentation on this manner. if commission has any questions, i would be open to answer any questions. >> any public comment on this

item? seen none the public comment portion is closed. >> i have quite a few comments here. no. this is not a comment. i have an quit question to staff about the date of the hearing. >> department staff? the it was heard on march 26th. >> i have questions about the mitigation resources. i think you need to augment them a bit. i will say one thing. i think since the art piece is considered to be somewhat important or recognized as such, i think the mitigation should include some kind of treatment of that particular art piece and i know the artist is around since it was carried in the paper yesterday or todaso