the conditional use and one for the variance. president fong: at separate times? >> back-to-back. and then take public comment. >> good afternoon. elizabeth watty, planning department's staff. the existing elevations in your pockets are mislabeled as proposed elevations. i am sorry for the confusion. i am submitting a revised sheet. the substance has not changed at all, only the labeling and the page numbers. this was existing, not proposed. on to the project. the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for formula retell to operate in the commercial space. this base is located on the ground floor, on the southeast corner of haight and fillmore

street. there was a large fire that caused excessive damage to the building in september, 2011, and the building has been vacant since. the planning commission is required to consider the concentration of formula retail in the district and the compatibility with the best that the character. there is a neighborhood existing with retail uses in the district. the project will not affect the concentration of formula retail uses in the district. this district is predominantly occupied by independent businesses, and his property was in spite of the only retail part

in the district. the project has worked with the product sponsor extensively to make sure it will be compatible with the is that the character surrounding neighborhood. the project will result in an improved facades. a conditional approval requires these windows to remain unobstructed in the interior of the space. in terms of vacancy rates, there are approximately 11 other vacant storefronts throughout the district. the department has not received additional comments since the packets were published. there are approximately four people with concerns, however, they are predominantly about the renovation is occurring on the residential floors, which are not the subject of the conditional use. the project has been found to be both necessary and desirable, since it would serve a retail pharmacy back to the neighborhood.

the project is well-suited for a formula retail tenant. it would improve active use. it would not increase the concentration of formula retail uses within this district. based on these findings of those articulated in the case report, the department recommends you approve. president fong: the weaker the project sponsor next? >> the project sponsor, and then the variance. >> thank you. andrew junius for the project sponsor. foremost, it is obvious we would like to get a pharmacy and reopened here as quickly as possible. there is not one in the area. the closest one is at market and church. the residents are hoping this gets approved a moves ahead

quickly. merchants in the area have also told us they are missing the foot traffic that a large retailer at this corner provides. i think we are all excited to transition this corner from what is there now, which is pretty bland, transitioning it to -- that is where we are today. hopefully, by spring and summer of next year, we will be looking at a significant improvement, in terms of looking into the store being the condition reference. you are seeing a lot of reference to the new street frontage controls leading to new glazing. it is an active debate.

i hope pedestrians enjoy it as well. you may have questions, so i will leave it at that. president fong: thank you. public comment on this item. >> the presentation on the variance? >> staff does not have the separate barry and presentation, but is -- a separate variance presentation, but it is our understanding the project sponsor would like to make one. >> the building was earlier damaged in a fire.

there are twisting risers. the retail floor goes to the property line, in the required rear yard said back. the second thing i would like to do is take a vintage of the roof over the grand -- the ground- floor retail, and make that an outdoor space for several of the units on the first floor. currently, there is no outdoor space for any of the units in this building, which would be required if it were built today. we would also like to add of unease on to some of the units that face south over this first floor area. that would give them outdoor

space. that is the variance with those items. >> can you state your name, for the record? >> michael harrison, project architect. president fong: public comment. i have one speaker card, sandra mac. >> i have been a resident living within two blocks of that area for the last 45, 50 years. i just have a couple of questions. one has to do with the sidewalk on the western side of the building. currently -- before walgreen's burned, you could go down the western slope. you may notice there is a bus

stop there with a lot of traffic going up and down, with all of the restaurants. in order to get items into -- to load items into the pharmacy, they had done something to the sidewalk. when you walked down that area, it was not repaired. i understand, talking to the architect today, that is not likely to be the case. that is what i have for 7a. i just wanted to ask about light and air, when people talk about changing things to add to the building footprint.

i am always concerned what will happen to any windows. obviously, fire should not be a free pass for noncompliance. we should make sure that whatever changes are made should be made to make things and better, not to take away from the rights that neighbors have. president fong: thank you. i believe there is one more speaker card on the bench. if you have public comment on this item and you are prepared, come on up. if you are ready with that. >> i understand we are not dealing with tenants rights issues. i am a former tenant, planning to move back in.

i do not know that you can see. i just wanted to go on the record that the numbering that has been done for the so-called existing units is not the numbering that we had. therefore, my address was apartment 9, but on these plans, it is apartment five. i want that to go on the record. as you can see, they have taken out four of the five light wells. i would prefer to have a light will -- well than not, to lose that next to my apartment. there is a major difference in the size of departments two and 16 -- apartments two and 19. if you look at those changes, i

think that is the biggest change. president fong: your name was? >> bay addelstein. president fong: katja jorge? >> i am a little nervous. i do not have any problems other than the department i was in a formerly. it in the apartment above me have been diminished. i am not sure how to use this thing. this was my former apartment size. after the redevelopment, it has been diminished greatly, and a whole bedroom has been given over to the apartment next door. we have met initially with the owners and the architects in january, which is where we got the blueprints.

one of the owners that is in attendance says we may not be going back to the original units. we may be moved to another area, which would be fine with me. we formerly had outside fire escapes. i do not see any hear any more. i am kind of curious about the cost. i realize this is a very old building, and obviously it needed to be updated, but i am not sure we were prepared for lots and of unease. that is all. -- lots and balconies. that is all. president fong: is there any additional public comment? maybe i will start off and asked the project sponsor if they want to address how this building has been put back together, if there is anyone that can answer that.

>> i will be happy to answer any questions. president fong: are there the same number of units? >> there are the same number of units. in fact, no units have been made smaller. some units have been made larger. we were able to move them around. as somebody said, unit a was 500 feet. the new unit may be 750. this has to them relocated to a different section of the building. they were conforming non- conforming units. conforming units, we were allowed to march. others, we were not. we could not shrink the size of any units. we have complied with the goals and direction of the planning department.

with regard to the fire escape, the fire escapes are gone, because we have fully sprinkle the building. all of the separations are up to code. hopefully, this is contingent -- the removing a fire escape is contingent upon the stair. we have met with the building department. they have signed off on this. this is what they would like us to do. fire escapes are not a great way to get out of a building. they are not allowed in new buildings. it is something that exists because there is no other way. if we had the opportunity to make two code-compliant stairs, it does not require the fire escape. president fong: this is a safer, more up to code building? >> this is part of the project.

there were no rated separations between corridors, between units, between floors. all of that is now up to code. the prior stairs were not in closed. the stairs are now in closed and rated. the egress did not comply. if you grant the variance, it will be totally to code. commissioner moore: thank you for explaining that. could you please explain to the public as well as the commission that none of those are part of what we are approving today? we are only looking at the cu. this is an unusual case. never in six years has the project come packaged with the way it has. to answer that question, would you please explain the process and how these things normally come together?

scott sanchez: what is before the planning commission today is the request on the conditional authorization, for the formula used. the second item i will be considering is the rear your variance, with the addition of the stairs and the buccaneers, which provide open space for the units. this is unique, because they are doing multiple things here. they are rebuilding the unit. there were configuring some of these units. we have divided the building permits to those that were interior. i believe the permits for the interior work have already been approved. i think a lot of the concerns raised here today deal with rent issues, best addressed by the

rent board. i can give the best advice to the people who came to speak on this item. >> there was a sense of urgency, so we did want to package it, even though not all of these items are necessarily before you. commissioner moore: this type of alteration, raising the ceiling, does not require a 311 notification? >> it was covered in the notice for the conditional use hearing just so that folks were aware. it does require 312 notification. commissioner moore: that is why people spoke to their rental situation? >> there are 3 components. none of them require neighborhood notification. there is a second component which involves expanding some of

the units vertically by adding a lofted space. that does require a neighborhood not vacation. then there is the component of the ground floor of alteration to commercial space, which is the cu before you. what is technically before the commission is the formula retail cu. commissioner moore: thank you. i appreciate the explanation that some of the units were not compliant by size. the architect explain how he adjusts unit sizes -- that was not arbitrary shifting around of units to achieve larger or very small units. it was really following what the code requires these days. >> i cannot speak to the building code requirements. >> as part of the over-the-

counter permit, the planning department verified all of that. commissioner antonini: i think this is a fairly simple thing. obviously, we have one formula retail use replacing another and much better use with the improvements made to the ground floor. i appreciate all the other things we went into. this is exactly the kind of thing i talk about frequently, the ability to operate hazardous buildings. unfortunately, a fire was necessary to make this possible. if you look at the renderings of some of the exterior parts of the building, particularly the windows on the west side, which are being done to match those on the north elevation, which may have been what was originally there in the first place -- the

inclusion of the second means of egress, the buccaneers, outdoor space -- there are a lot of good things being done, which is not before us. i am encouraged by this and would hope the zoning administrator grants those. it looks like a very good project. commissioner hillis: just a question, because it came up in public,. what are the tenants' rights under rent control? are they allowed to move back into a unit? >> i am russell flynn, representing the owners. having spent five years on the rent board, i am fully aware of what the rent board requires. all the tenants are welcome to return. about half of them have already chosen to move on. those were the tenants who were playing -- who were paying market went and easily found

other places. when we had the fire, everybody received a thousand dollars immediately, even if they had renter's insurance, to help them relocate. we were able to relocate the tenants as well as a sandwich shop. we have been in contact with those tenants, and someone in the neighborhood has a web site which keeps everybody informed with what is going on. even though this project has been fast-tracked, 11 months later, we are just now getting before you. i do not expect we will be able to accommodate anybody for another year. maybe 18 months. it is a little premature for us to sit down and say this will be real. commissioner hillis: but a tenant has the right to move back into a comparable unit? >> if the have a studio, they

would get another studio. if they have a one-bedroom, they will get a one bedroom. it will be at the same when they were paying before. commissioner hillis: 3 twins? >> they want to move back in as well. commissioner sugaya: i had a similar question because of an experience i am well aware of. . a building across the street from me when a fire. i will not go into it. the formula retail -- one of the considerations is whether there are other formula retail establishments in the area. the analysis says the proposed formula retell use will replace the existing formula retail, not affecting the current concentration of formula retail uses. we do not know what the concentration is.

>> we did not go out and do math surveys, the way we have four others. the legislation does not establish a threshold for a caps -- or a numeric cap. it is just saying it will not affect the concentration. seeing as this is an exact replacement in the same building space, we felt this would not affect the concentration in the district. we felt it was not necessary to do. commissioner sugaya: i guess i am of the opposite opinion, thinking we should have had a list of formula retail uses, just in case we decided that we did not -- that we wanted to take the opposite direction, which is a decrease in the number of formula retail uses in an area where it has been highly

concentrated. i do not know if this is highly concentrated. with fewer for miller retail establishments -- it would have been nice to have something on the area. >> i can share with you that this is a relatively small commercial district of about two blocks. from my memory, i cannot think of one formula retail establishment in this area. if there are any, they are very low concentration. vice president wu: i had the same conversations. maybe the direction for the future, just too hard for miller retail in the neighborhood -- i support formula retail pharmacy, but it is helpful to have that context to judge the concentration or state of formula retail in a neighborhood commercial district. i also really like seeing the

improvements in the window transparency. the plans were really hard to read. the number of them were mislabeled. it is good to see that the final plan is to have more windows, and to have the condition of window transparency. i also appreciate the responses on renters having the same unit size at the same rent. although that is not technically in front of us, that is important. finally, and wanted to ask for a response to the public question about the sidewalk, just to clarify what the plans are for the sidewalk. >> the sidewalk is not directly in the purview of the planning department. i would like to defer to the project architect, if he has the information.

>> this is an old building with some great issues. we are not sure how we are going to solve that -- with some grade issues. commissioner moore: i am in support of formula retail in this particular case, just like commissioner wu. we are talking about the replacement of the pharmacy. i assume as a planning commission we do not have any say about the% of pharmacy. some of the other -- the percent of pharmacy. some of cvs developments emphasized not only pharmacies, but competing use like sandwiches and everything that comes with it. i would want to protect the small sandwich shop which will move back into another part of the building, and make sure the pharmacy emphasis is the larger

mission of this particular store in this location. do we have any ability to influence that? scott sanchez: i do not think there is anything before you that would specify the pharmacy applications take a certain percentage of the use. commissioner moore: the problem with transparent windows -- i am making a criticism of cvs. on california street, there is a new cvs with transparent windows. it is the most unattractive thing on the street. having seen members of the public sit and not, i would suggest that where i have a transparent windows, i want to see some but attractive on the inside. that means either the merchandise is displayed in a

way that encourages or entices the view, rather than looking at a cardboard carton stacking up next to the window. perhaps we could have an influence on that at least. >> the condition of approval that discusses the mandatory transparency also establishes a distance from the windows on the interior, from which no item can block. there is a true pedestrian level of visibility into the retail space, rather than having various items on the interior. commissioner moore: that means the display of merchandise is enticing, and is not just looking at all of the apples in the world. some other formula retail people do that very well. the change advertising and merchandise. i would expect that would happen

here as well. commissioner antonini: i agree with the supervisors about making sure what is seen through the windows is attractive. also, i think the visibility brings good features in, especially after dark. it is a lighted area. activity is there. you look out as well as look in. it is a good security measure. i think it can make a more inviting environment. in terms of form and the retail along eighth street -- along haight street, this is lower haight. i am not familiar with many of them. there would not be a huge concentration. there was a gap, which may not beth