department be drafted into the legislation as well as any other comments you might get. and that it come back to us at the time designated for phase three when we can actually understand what we have in front of us. there are too many questions at (ivpr >>d?ñ? basically, your prior mn is withdrawn and this is a motion for you continuing this until the next date, which would be may 3rd? >> that would be my motion, is that a sufficient? >> we would have this on a later date, not at the$h same date. >> the item that you have on next week's calendar would be a phase three. i am assuming that you are going to continue this out to a date

beyond may 3rd. >> that is the recommendation. >> i already think this is on the agenda. >> this is either tonight or early tomorrow morning so that when i finalize your calendar, it will have a different date on it. >> ok. >> maybe we can get the commission to clarify some of the points. we understand the mapping issue. other issues that you would like more thoroughly addressed? >> is there any way to clarify the cm? >> yes, it does not appear that these are within the area but we can get more discussions. one of the parcels is, the ones

that are there are ready to unchanging. we are making more restrictive what can be done there. that seems like a good transitional step there at least. certainly, we can do more zoning analysis of what the zoning should be for those. it does not do any harm to these parcels and is a good transitional step. >> if it can be presented that way. >> it sursure. >> we spoke to the van ness parking issue. i am supportive of there being no minimum but on some maximum, some projects might require one to one parking.

this is especially in view of the 321 in tournament with housing and commercial. there might be those kind of projects that come forward. >> i would like to hear more and some specific examples and how it is interpreted given that you have a contemporary space which is easy to subdivide. particularly, the appearance of an active production use on a store front might be a complicating. >> the items that we are continuing today are not necessarily related to phase 3. >> our goal is to group them in the items that are similar.

>> i am trying to argue against making this even further. >> we will break it up into groups and make it more digestible. >> if we continue this throughout next week. >> phase 3 is scheduled for next week. this is to be scheduled out to the next hearing in may when we had proposed to continue this and then we will bomb phase three. >> especially three weeks from now. >> we would be perfectly happy and i will put more into making sure.

we are happy to have this on may 3rd. i am open to either scenario. >> i would say no. if the commission would indulge us to break it out further. this has been a lot of work and i appreciate all the efforts that have been put into this. this was introduced a year ago and they put a substantial amount of work on this. >> as you consider the days to consider, please do not continue this until the 24th of may. >> that is correct.

>> i am assuming that the second on the motion -- so says >> i want to continue this on a day that i am not here. [laughter] >> the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item to may 3rd. this is phase two. on that motion > -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye,. \ >> aye.

course on i. lee, is there a day? >> may 3rd. >> may 3rd? -- >> for item 12 b, is there a day? >> may 3rd. >> may 3rd? >> yes. >> on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> the item passes. we are now on to item number 13, amendments to the san francisco planning code and zoning map sheet su08 to establish the

ninth straight power retell special use district for a property located at 555 9th street. >> thank you. this is zoned urban mixed use and it requires a conditional use for formula retail establishment. the property is located within the district with pr prohibits new advertising signs. it does have maximum property requirements. what the legislation would do what it establish an sud and it

would permit forma retail there. it removed the maximum parking limits and it would exempt it from the assigned district controls and the department supports the establishment of the ninth street power retell special sud because these were created to protect the districts within the commercial districts and the shopping center is internally focused and presents an and actable size to the broader neighborhood and has none of the qualities that are districts which restrict the use. for these reasons, in forcing this does not make sense. however, the department is not find any justification for exempting as from the controls

or from implementing this from the zoning district maximum controls and we agree with the small business commission that there should be some use size limits on the property. therefore, the staff's recommendation is to remove a section from the ordinance which would exempt the proposed sud from the special signed district, and then another section said that this is still subject to the maximum parking control and to allow the existing 330 parking spaces to remain regardless of future use and change and adding a 90,000 square foot trigger which would require cu for any use about 90,000 square feet. that comes from a use size limit. that is how we came up with that.

>> i will make this brief. i wanted to give a brief introduction of our intent in introducing the legislation that you have before you. the legislation introduced recognizes the existing uses at 5559 street, is currently houses known stores such as bed bath and beyond. this ordinance would create a special use district that would include only the subject parcel and would principally promote the sud. this has primarily retail establishments and we believe that this is an appropriate use. after some discussion, we agreed to amend the legislation to require this for any single use

about 75,000 square feet which is based on the square footage of the largest tenant currently. we have reviewed the planning staff recommendations and agreed with increasing this to 90,000 square feet to provide consistency. we will amend the legislation to that effect as well and thank you for your consideration in reviewing this legislation. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. this is to allow what has been there for 20 years. this is permitting what currently exists at the retail center in the district.

this is a brief overview, this is the current site plan. of the center and some of the current tenants are bed bath and beyond. and this is a small business that would bring business to the center. and it the center has no plans for any physical changes. there will be no changes in the center or for the use. this will remain a retail center

for reform of the retail tenants. this has been a very strong economic engine for the city. it generates tax revenue of over $5 million. it is an important city for the center and for the residence and once again it does have a handle affect on neighboring businesses including the top area, the house of louis, and this is an important center for the city. this will not have a negative impact on any existing neighborhood serving retail uses. we respect -- we requested the planning commission to support this legislation. the project owner has agreed to the recommendations of the plan department and has no plans to increase parking. there are no plans to put on any general advertising other than the existing tenants and has agreed to the 90,000 square foot trigger for any conditional use

authorization. we urge your support and i'm available for any comments. thank you. it is any further public comment on this item? collected the staff pull file for when this site was created and read the history of the site? my guess is no because i sat through the hearing and it was a fairly long and protracted process. i was in the room, i was not heavily involved but there was a lot of staff concerns about how there would not be windows facing the street originally and the original proposal and so the staff made a proposal that you still have to have windows. anyone who knows this site knows they are totally blocked off. so, what was the commission's

thought process when they spent hours and hours and hours on this 125 years ago? i know it was a very contentious hearing and a very contentious process because this is a suburban mall type of facility. the initial proposal to take it to the c-three standard shows that there was not a whole lot of thought given. that was something like macy's, which the original proposal was greater than the uses currently there. one of the things i think would be good for staff to do is to read the files, when zoning like this is created, and not his command and say, this is a reasonable course. what was the intention? i am a trader joe's person. i have no bias against shopping

there. i shop there all the time. i know what the city planning commission was looking at this site as and saying that we will not do in san francisco these types of malls and it was a very troublesome process getting it through. now, it will go through without checking what we were trying to do. i think it is sometimes valuable to go back and these files were available. and it was a fairly long several month process just to allow the mall to happen like this. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> is any a time when we would think about this differently?

i love going there. it is very convenient. i stock up on the 20% coupons. they never expire. you can use as many as you like. what i find frustrated about that building is that when i was at all hall of justice for three weeks for jury duty, there was no easy way for a pedestrian to access that center. at had to walk through where the cars are going in and out. it was very frustrating. if there is ever a way, this is a pedestrian entrance this is not easy to except. i guess the question i have was , is this an issue that formula retail: choirs conditional use? i was just trying -- in a

specific area, the former retell controls, that is not a way that works, is it? we are saying in this particular property that it would not be? i am trying to understand what the purpose is. >> this applies to certain excuse districts and it is included in form of the retail. if it went out of business and another form of the retail was in there, we would require the use. so, that is one of the reasons, the space is used for forming the retail and it is not a neighborhood commercial district like we associate and it does not have the characteristics of the district can. >> in the case of forma retail,

this is the only instance where this is not a lifetime benefit. this is conditional use for formula retail. you always apply for a new conditional use. this is not have the same use that others have, correct? >> correct. >> i would agree with the 75,000 square foot. one of the things that is nice about the center is that there is a mix of businesses to patronize if it became one big business. you would have a lot of the advantage that it does provide with a one stop shop of the form of the retail business that people would want. my only thing is that obviously in the future, someone could have a new planning commission. we can figure out how we want

this to be. and you want to see how this would better respond to the streets and how this would be an answer the retail space. i'm not saying that this is to create onerous new rules. to the extent that we know a lot more about planning and thinking about the sort of things, i imagine that the community will change to a certain extent either through the eastern neighborhoods, or other kinds of things we have done their and places that we wanted to have a way to think about, even with the special use district going into play, how we could respond. >> we are not initiating

anything. >> supervisors. >> can you provide me with a history of this property businesses? >> i don't have a tenant history for each location. >> the reason i ask is, i'm curious to know whether the formula retail has happened within the past x number of years. i know that has been there for a long time with trader joe's. >> this is only folklore. there was the jungle and the

jungle gym at one point. i don't know anything more specific or detailed. i just asked that there is one on form of a retail at least. we used to go to the stereo place their and i don't know if i ever bought anything. , it was fun to go in there and i don't think that they are there any more. in any case, i don't understand why we're doing this. this was put an end to this is a brand new category and this -- i don't understand, the conditional use process seems to be the perfectly fine process to go through with formula retail and it was going to come in there.

and following up commissioner borden, i think in the future, i think that there is a question about whether or not there is a formula retail might be desirable in that area of. also, i think the problem for me is that i don't have the language in front of me, but for a special use district, aren't there specific language and the desirability and its contribution and the desirability, the contributions designed wise and everything that is going to make to the community in a letter? >> that is a special use district. >> i don't see why this is necessary. >> i would like to pick up on the comments and just say that

it is very interesting. the building as designed is an inward-looking building. however, having said that, that in itself guarantees pretty much the larger retail use and the formula kinds of users which will be current and the use of the tenant. this commission has never ever taken issue with buildings to really be for those type of use. do think that using this is more like the zoning and in the interest at all of the larger ideas that surrounded the rezoning and this is particularly the eastern neighborhoods. i am perfectly fine with leaving this as it is, continuing to

support the produce of that size. and this is one that we have and i believe that we can support this. >> i am very much in agreement with the comments that have been made so far. i could not figure out, i don't know why we're doing this. it does not make any sense to me at all. i guess i have to add the comment on the building because this is extremely pedestrian on friendly and it is not even vehicle friendly. , it is hard to get in and hard to get out. if anyone tries to park in the roof, you cannot get in or out. and i see no problem with

requiring a cu for this year. i don't know why this is in front of us. i do not know what the outreach has been. certainly, to my knowledge, there is no outreach to the commission regarding it whatsoever regarding the legislation. >> why do we have this legislation and what is it trying to do? >> it recognizes that this is a shopping area that has formula retail uses and this is an extra process or a process where the planning commission reviews it and as a commissioner stated, this is something that is in the context of the current use of the state. we have a gun at the very minimal outreach to the community for the people who

follow this issue. we did reach out and recognize that the form of a retail should be an appropriate use like this. and this is to recognize the use that is currently there. that is fine with me because i don't know, there would be a trigger, as you say, over 90,000 square feet. otherwise, let's assume -- >> to recognize that the largest tenant is 75,000 square feet. we accept the planning department staff recommendation on and 90,000 square feet. we did have the small business commission about the impact on small businesses and they were

concerned about a pennant larger than the current bed bath and beyond. that is why we have changed the size the imitations. that is basically our intent and we did receive this request from the project sponsor and did spend time with local community members. >> i am in agreement with this legislation. it keeps us from having a cumbersome conditional use process. perhaps bed, bath, and beyond was coming in. that was an internal decision to be made by the center there and it's certainly did not need a conditional use. i move approval but i don't know if anyone will second it.