bottle anyway and the band like has a valley and north beach and the special controls and cds. >> it will stay in hayes valley if we change the distinction like supervisor breed wants it changed it will focus has a valley the definition we'll change universally. >> and then under the administrative review the potential for someone if the director as indians okay to the changes of one formula retail existing and another one coming in they could appeal that at the building permit stage as a dr?

grateful so we provide the notices of the commission and if anyone wants to requested mandated to a dr hearing >> i have not done that much thinking about the administrative review frankly but my he concern is that having it come back to the commission as a conditional use sets up a different sort of standards like under the cu it has to be necessary and in demand it puts it on the applicant but under the dr it is up to us to say so there's a twist even though there's an appeal and could come back to the commission once it gets into our decision making camp it's slightly different.

>> that's an interesting point we mention the 0 thirty three criteria but i think we need to do more thinking of the mechanisms on that. >> along those lines. and specifically to address that issue we have with every conditional use we're not chaipg the conditional use process for formula retail to exude the possility if a starbuck's or formula retail i don't mean to pick on starbuck's goes out of business but the cu expires which it didn't now it runs with the property; is that right >> from a burger king 0 a mcdonald that will trigger a new

conditional use under the code requirement. >> no, no i'm saying if burger king went out of the business if - >> if mcdonald's took over it's requires a new you cu. >> but we're changing it. >> it has limited applications but if mcdonald's buys out burger king they'll have to go through the cu process and if there was a let's say a phil's cfo on the corner of somewhere we gave it a conditional use from 14 to 21 stores but a reinforce and a half later they exit that property and starbuck's wants to come in.

does that trigger a conditional use or an administrative process. that currently is a cu but we haven't worked out the abandonment so that's something else we need to look at that a standard cu is 3 years but we can change that in the process of administration review >> with respect to process you have outlined in a table a number of other proposals and we've heard from two supervisors offices that there were pending board of supervisors legislation ideas or whatever running around about this whole thing we've known about but your excusing to move forward despite the fact the board of supervisors hadn't revolved their issues.

i don't think june 5th is raefks >> we'll recommend june 26th we agree. >> and is that enough time to coordinate with the supervisors. i want to avoid something i guess they can hold it up they have to consider it anyway >> we've been working cooperatively with supervisor mar they want the date move forward from june 5th they want to consider our proposal and look at the changes to their proposal and further coordination so also their buses i didn't with budget season i can text the aide and see if the 26 date works he originally asked for the first week in july that's not a hearing date.

>> we can continue it if the supervisor asks. >> we're going to continue our coordination. >> i don't care what the date is so all the supervisors having something pending can weigh in and resolve some of the issues rather than going to the board and they hash it out he'd make changes those don't necessarily have to kouk come back to us again. >> i'll make a motion to initiate. >> second. >> commissioner borden. >> very atheist package of ideas in some ways having sat through the discussions it's amazing we were able to come together it wasn't clear for awhile for an ability to come together so i compliment the

staff like modifying the criteria for evaluations of conditional use for the formulate retail everyone loves and hates certain businesses how people place value judgements on formula retail so have something like the signage we've talked about the signage have been a problem. i think adding additional use categories like increasing from 11 to 20. the limited financial was an interesting point will the atms i live more than a mile from my banks atm as a consequence i have never cash i pay by plastic. so i'm not saying i wouldn't be

supportive of a cu for limited financial but a dr maxillomight be something to consider because of the small businesses want especially small cafes it's better to have cash and you can get cash. also the transparency and the visibility those things are interesting i have concerns with the substitutes i understand what people are trying to tangle and a lot of people's have investment in restaurant and businesses and i think you run the slippery slope. i thought about larry he's a

billionaire when you talk about what it takes to open a store of any type in general there are people with wealth who might open up a bow technical and trying to make a value judgment who can afford the rents i don't know it's black and white but i understand the intent of wanting to deal with the gap and things like that but that's different. even the gap is a different thing when the company a headquartered here and are they're going back to the headquarters but the headquarters are here and employees is there an advantage. the issue around the number of

stores is actually makes sense to move the number higher i think about books inc. that is formula retail the fact we even have bookstores their meeting did with the amazons and the general cost of doing business they have costs health care and others types and minimum wage increases things they're not competing to have 6 to 9 months to open up another store bylaw plus there's there's a fee for conditional use. you thought about when you talk about a soup company or pizza local pizza kind of chain they have commissaries in the city

places that make the soups or make their pizza products that they send out to the local other businesses and people don't realize those businesses are here that's part of it and you have to have a reason for a commissa commissary. i live next to hate valley i love it but as a general matter it's not a neighborhood serving as i want it to be. i had an instance i wanted to buy a pair of trousers they were a and we'll expensive and they didn't have my size so i went to the gap. there in lies the shapes and

sizes that are not recognized reasons why formula retailers exist we've done a great job of considering when a business should or shouldn't locate into the neighborhood. i think a lot of the controls basically expand by the international companies said they wanted. and then also to include get is other categories when we talk about the number of 20 i struggle to think about who would be captured that people wouldn't have wanted necessarily especially the size indicates profits a chain of 20 or 9 locations has a different profit for one that has a franchise model they don't own it but

basically license it out there's a lot of models it's hard to a apply a one-size-fits-all. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to brief extend my comments of praise and admiration for the work that was done an inclusionary broad-based effort i share all of the comments of support that speaks to incorporating conditional uses and standardizing the review process to an stent including strongly about the incision of new perform standards i hope we will further

elaborate. i would echo my concerns or at least expand a time for further evaluating from 11 to 20 and to the threshold it indeed has many people commented and concerned about i'm saying that mraefrl with respect to the size of the city and the number of crossroads corridors about the clarifying neighborhood choice how does did current amendment challenge for example, the small business protection act for g and which is based on 11 establishment.

you could answer it now or later i'm supporting that people are concerned about >> thank you for that question we've heard that a lot we're proposing those changes they're on balance nor restrictive than the definition at the time the voters approved prop g it will remove some businesses but by adding international businesses and entitlement stops overall we're capturing for businesses and providing more regulation than prop g allows in the neighborhood commercial districts. >> would that require the neighborhood support or an automatic question how people are voting on and been applied. i don't want to discuss the

ramifications would that band be protected or then i think many people ask about the integrity and the comfort people have with the cu process as the general kind of last ability to examine something i'm sorry to be speaking so long would we be weakening the process by making it a short process >> so prop g lateral put in place for the neighborhood commercial districts every neighborhood commercial districts requires a cu with the administrative review process remains that as well as checking

them for the standard unless someone requests a full hearing because it was already cu granted we do the process. i only say it's hard to understand all the subtlely we're not operating small business or in the trenches of what happens when you encounter the difficulties of formula retail that spends the next few weeks continuing to talk with those people that are here today and ask them the questions by which their challenged >> okay quickly in the interest of time a couple of things i want to align myself with the why 11 and 19 and i share

commissioner sugaya's concerns about it the supervisors will still bring legislation forward after we pass a body of recommendations. >> so for the most part this commission has heard and considered the supervisors piece of legislation the only legislation that is pending and not heard is supervisor mar's proposal which is the broadest and pertains to the whole city. at this point they could go forward with the proposals they're waiting because they're curious about the process. supervisor mar's we're proposing to bring at the same time of ours >> on that not what date works for the office considering budget. >> i heard from supervisor mar's aid june 26th does not work the easily would be

july 10th. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> president would we ask staff would you agree to give us like a brief all of what the basic intent of the supervisors legislation we hear about it but not seen the comparison we can relate to the larger things. >> i believe - and it's only supervisor mar's legislation at this point that's been drafted. >> it's not been acted on by you, you all of the other ordinances your heard the supervisors are watching the hearing but could bring it forwarded our intention so to fully evaluate sxhafrz proposal at the next hearing at whatever date. >> the intention to hear them on the same date for a

comparison correct. >> even the ones we've approved how we've done the support because we have fragmented pieces. >> yes. okay. >> so. >> commissioners a motion and second on the floor, however, no date of the consideration of adaptation i've heard june and july 10th. >> the resolution is no earlier are earlier than. >> july 10th or later is what is currently on the table. >> so the motion is for july 10th or after. >> one caveat i'll be supportive of the july 10th it is a topic that deserves the full commission and if we want to move it again we'll make the

decision on that date. >> that's acceptable okay. great. no, it's not a continuance for clarification it's establishing a date commissioners, on that motion on planning code and considering the adaptation commissioner antonini. commissioner borden >> commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero >> the commission will take a 20 minute break. >> thursday, may 22, 2014. i'd like to remind please silence all electronic devices. that may sound off and and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record.

commissioners we left off under your regular calendar on item 11. the mission alcohol beverage special use ordinance amending the alcohol beverage special use district. diego sanchez i'll be talking about the special use district alcohol beverages, however, i'm i'm to provide supervisor campos office with time to present on the motivator >> good afternoon, commissioners the amendment to 9 special district is pretty small a narrow exception allowing the miniature golf course to serve alcohol beverages and bowling

alleys enjoy this similar section and approached by a company and the business was conceived the people have been in the neighborhood and looking at to integrate it's a formal retail use how can we serve our customers and make that a fun indoor activity and asked you us to consider giving them on a exemption and i've been working with a gentleman that was unable to stay but you've been doing a great job intersecting with the community and reached out with hiring practices and working with others agencies and doing a

lot with at risk youth and a in speaking with the community this small change in allowing this use like the bowling alley has not had push back from the community and the supervisors are in support we ask your support as well. >> thank you. >> commissioners staff is requesting are a recommendations of approval with modifications to the board of supervisors to amend this section as mentioned the proposal will add minnesota golfs courses that are physically scombrartd with the restaurant use as could transfer liquor licenses the following modifications adding another use that are eligible to transfer

liquor explains and the staff is asking for a modification so bowling alleys and minnesota government courses and others entertainment uses that don't require a permit and secondly, the clarification of the use is allowed to transfer the liquor licenses that is bona fide licenses and staff is recommending the first modification that the other entertainment permits to be loud rather to be allowed yes to transfer for the following reasons. the entertainment use allows a variety of use like bowling alleys and minnesota it is your golf course to add another activity seeking the privilege of transferring liquor licenses

and the other is defined in the planning code it provides the clarify for future determinations and the proposed modification is exuding wide activities and finally again staff is a rem that modification of the liquor licenses are allowed to be transferred and it's stating a current planning department practice that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions thank you >> thank you. >> any public comment on that item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> i have a question i'm supportive but i have a questdet

doesn't specify whatever liquor licenses a 37 or 42 lastly it's in accumulation with the bona fide eating places. >> yes. >> i'll move to recommend with staff conditions. >> second. >> could i please talk through a little bit more what other entertainment my entail whether or not increase unat the end consequences. >> of entertainment use to include the recreation uses like bowling alleys and maybe skating rink we're specific xooutd the live dancing and poetry reading one has to get a entertainment permit.

>> so the code specifics specific used uses within other entertainment. >> that's right. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. sanchez please verify that is only for indoor uses explain that to me it would be interesting to hear that as an expansion of an indoor use correct. >> yes. however, certainly commercial entities that could be open air. >> would they come to us separately because we know of instances where large gathering in outdoor spaces have ramifications i have you could explain that and the current use for the minnesota it is your use

is indoor use only put forth in our amendment. i understand your concerns if it expands to outdoor uses the community wouldn't appreciate the expansion with the bona fide entertainment with the outdoor use we've kept it narrow in our contraction vs. as changing the code >> thank you. if i may through the chair they require a radish or someplace like if that it must have a outdoor permit >> thank you. >> commissioners there's is

moved and seconded. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner borden commissioner hillis. commissioner moore commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 12 a and braxton building inspection commission on bush street a request for kufks and we're consider requires for variances. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the board. i'm with the staff. the project is located at 1430 bush street and a conditional use authorization to construct a hundred and 15 at all mixed use construction and with the rent a car at the current location. you ma