general about the uses along sacramento street. i imagine this will be less of an issue in the future. i don't know if that's something that the supervisors are starting to look at generally, but i know that ucsf put that property on the block which is on california street and then cpmc's plan are to close down the existing hospital and facilities they have there. >> thank you, commissioner borden. of course, it's something that we're looking at. i don't know how it's going to affect the ncd at this time, but we're involved in both those processes with ucsf and cpmc. so, we'll keep that in mind, thank you. >> great. in term of the zoning for anne marie, it's not restrictive -- for the medical uses already there, if they should leave, is it easy for other uses to inhabit those spaces? >> in this particular instance, if the use were legally permited in this ground floor use under this change to the legislation, entitlement would be in place. so, another similar medical use

could come in that same location. again, it could not go in another location unless it met the specific criteria laid out in this ordinance. >> and i guess my only question is with the medical use designation zoning that we have now, is it mostly fall under business professional use or is it a special category that exists? not talking about this particular case, but just in general when you look at the existing medical use in that neighborhood. is it zoned specifically medical use or [speaker not understood]? >> zoning is sacramento street neighborhood district. the land use is what you're talking about. >> right. >> i think there are more of the medical service type land uses in this district. there's not that many just office or professional service uses. but what we do have are a lot of counseling services, therapists, that sort of use in the neighborhood. >> i guess what i'm trying to make sure, it's just that i know some cases we have specific use zoning and i don't know like if a medical service use is already in another

building, say, and it moves out and something else can easily go in, is it like an as of right change, retail space wanted to go n restaurant. i wanted to understand how that works. >> on the ground floor, yes, this district would generally encourage retail type and other active uses. >> commissioner antonini. >> yes for ms. rodgers or ms. stephanie. just in regards to this legislation, it's broad enough that there could be other instances where it could apply on that corridor; is that correct? they have to fit the proscribed -- >> we don't think there are other places because it would only allow a medical service use to come into a place that had an existing business or professional service use. so, in looking at the district with the supervisor and the fan neighborhood organization group, we think this is a

limited one that should not have broad application. >> i know that particular area of the city, i have a few mental health professionals who come in as patients and sometimes referred to as couch corridor because there are so many of those types of uses there. so, just making sure. it sounds like this is really balanced, but just afford an opportunity for this instance. and if there were others, they'd have to fit into the proscribed dictates of this legislation. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'll make a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> on that motion to approve as modified, councilmember atkinsv? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved r, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. and places you under item 10 for case no. case no. 2013.0029x for 222 2nd street.

request for a determination of compliance. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. my name is kevin guy with planning staff. the request before you today is a determination of compliance under section 309 for project at 222 2nd street of the southwest corner of howard street. the proproject would demolish an existing parking lot and construct a 26 story office building containing 430,650 square feet of office uses, 2800 square feet of ground floor space, [speaker not understood], and ground floor public open space. the project was previously approved by this commission on august 21st, 2010 with a similar design and program of uses. at the time it was contemplated that a portion of the adjacent property to the west would be incorporated into the site. this area is occupied by a loading dock which would have been demolished and the area would have been utilized as a driveway ramp to access the parking for the project. since the previous approval this sponsor has been unable to acquire the portion of the

adjacent property. so stating desire of the project to accommodate vehicular circulation, reconfigure the office floor area and reduce the amount of ground floor retail space. from approximately 5,000 square feet to 2800 square feet. the height and gross area of the project are unchanged from the previous approval. however, the changes to the massing of the building has triggered new exceptions under section 309 for bulk limits and separation of towers that were not [speaker not understood] in previous approval. the sponsors are requesting to modify the previous approval to grant these new exceptions. with respect to the bulk limits, both the previous and current design comply with the limits for the upper tower portion of the building. the floor plates and lower tower have been enlarged slightly. the commission previously granted a bulk exception to the lower tower. however, the floors and current design exceed the dimensions of the exception and would require new exception for the length dimension of the floor which has increased by 7 feet. staff believes that the current

design still meets the criteria for granting of a bulk exception. with respect to the separation of towers, within s-bulk district the code requires setbacks from interior property lines and abutting streets. in order to preserve openness to the sky and avoid perception of overwhelming mass. [speaker not understood] along the howard, second, and tehema street frontages. [speaker not understood], the property line jogs to the east. in the previous design this was the area that was to be acquired from the adjacent property creating a space to comply with the [speaker not understood] requirements. the current design of the project does not comply with the current setback and a new exception is needed that was not previously granted. the conditions on the adjacent property will allow the setbacks to be met. [speaker not understood].

encroachment is setback to a loading dock [speaker not understood] 63 1 howard street. this property has sold all of its transferrable development rights, tdr, therefore the property cannot be enlarged under the tdr code. [speaker not understood] the encroachment of the project would not [speaker not understood] and would not diminish the appearance of separation between the buildings. i should note that in a previous approval the commission granted an exception to section 146 which specified the project be shaped to maintain an angle sunlight access to preserve sunlight on the 2nd street sidewalk. the commission found that the new shadow created by this exception would be limited in area and duration. compared with the previous design, the current project involves only minor reorientation of floor plates primarily within the base and lower tower portions of the building. therefore the shadow conditions on adjacent sidewalks would not dramatically differ from those expected by the previous

design. so, in summary, staff supports the requested modification of the previous section 309 approval to grant the new request for exceptions. the changes to the design are minor, and the building does not dramatically differ from the previously approved project. the project would redevelop an existing surface parking lot adding substantial office space, and retail amenities in a walkable location that is served by urban transit. thank you, and i'm available for questions. i should note that i did receive one letter in opposition that i will pass to the commission secretary for distribution. we received no other communications in opposition to the project. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. commissioners, andrew junius with rubin, junius and rose, [speaker not understood] representing the project sponsor. thank you for taking the time today. as usual kevin guy has stolen all my thunder. there's nothing else to say. the packet is complete. the detail given is completely

accurate. to boil it down to 60 seconds worth, we're seeking the property line issue kevin raised in connection with the tower loading dock, the tower separation. the other one, the bulk and the change in the lower tower is really a manifestation of a new building code related to seismic tower [speaker not understood] that came up after the project was approved. so, very straightforward requests. the project before you we believe is essentially the same. programmatically, floor area, the height. we have support letters i'm going to pass forward that we didn't get into the packet in time. these are from the various trades that are very interested to get going on this project. finally, the project is fully funded, ready to get a building permit and come out of the ground as quickly as possible. our entire team is here to answer any questions, and thank you very much for your consideration today. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? [inaudible].

>> excuse me, sir, if you're going to make public comment, you have to come up to the mic. >> seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i think i was on the commission when we approved this in 2010. i think these are -- was a good approval then and i think it's even a better project now with some changes that have been made in regards to the fact that the loading dock which was supposed to be part of it was not available. but i think we have an even better project because of some of these changes. one of the things that is very apparent here is there is a demand by many businesses for the broader floor plates and it allows tech uses and other uses that need this kind of configuration to come to satisfy.

and i know of another situation that's similar to this at the present time uop [speaker not understood] dental school is renovating a building that already has these broad plates on 5th street near mission. and i was a graduate of the earlier facility and i can speak to the difficulty that facility has in its present location because of the narrowness. so, it's not just tech, but other uses. it's important that we get broad floor plates. however, this has to be correct and i think the things they've done in terms of tower separation, bulk, are very much in keeping with the code. as was pointed out by mr. guy, because of the tdr sold by 6 20, 63 1 howard, there never will be another tower that they have to separate themselves from because even if that building were to be destroyed in a fire or some other manner, it could never be built to more

of a height than it's at now because they've already sold their tdrs. and then the bulk, there are a number of ways that you can grant exceptions and major variations in the skin of the building, and they're certainly doing that as you notice from the very well done design with the different panels that overlap each other. also, they have narrowed the base. the base could be wider than it is, but to try to make these variations, the bases narrower than it could be, and it somewhat compensates for the wider first section of the building. * base is and also at the seventh floor and above the building, sets back and it relates itself very nicely to the adjacent building, many of whom are typically in that 4 to 6-story range. so, and also this is a building that's ready to go. projected construction to begin in july of this year.

so, i think it does a lot of good things and i am totally in support. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to take a slightly different tact toward looking at the changes in front of us. i think the commissioners who supported the approval in 2010 still hold to that commitment, except i think it is an overstatement to say that the building has not changed. it has changed and it is some of the areas of change where i am asking for the architect to continue working with the department in order to achieve some of those objectives, which in particular in 2010 were expressed quite strongly by the commission. and that is that one of the rules which encourages taller buildings in downtown to distinguish between the base, the middle and the top. we have lots of definitionses, particularly on the base and the middle of the building. that's become a much flatter

facade, expression. and i would suggest that gets reexamined to really deal with the historic street ball and what we use to track as a cornice line. this building doesn't have a cornice line, but establish a distinct banding above the fourth floor. or to remind us of the lower street, one of the historic buildings which we have moving west on howard street. the other point is that the building is not code compliant. it asks for a number of exceptionses based on the design of the building in 2010. * this commission supported the exceptions which are posed to us today. you have to allow yourself to look at them with a fresh eye. i am not saying they are not approvable, but they shift the burden of the bulk of the building onto 2nd street, which at that time was already a concern.

so, building on 2nd street, because of the loss of property on the west side -- on the adjoining property line, makes the building longer on 2nd street in order to maintain the square footage of the entire square footage which adds 400 square feet to each floor. having said that, my expectation would be the building finds a way to express some relief or modulation on the 2nd street facade. i would also expect that as a building, always more massive volitive to how it shows itself on tehema, on the alley, [speaker not understood]. those are techniques that are not worked on. we did not have time to meet and discuss them any further. but my discussions with director ram, including mr.

junius and mr. shannon, indicated there is a possibility to consider that. director ram, if you want to engage with me on that conversation which we had the last few days. >> yes, thank you, commissioner. as i understand it, the concerns that you've raised, they're kind of three major concerns. one is the band above the base of the building and strengthening that so that there is more of a distinction between the base and the upper part and the middle part of the building. the second is the bulk of the building on 2nd street. and the third is modulation and some relief on the tehema street side. i think certainly -- i think there are architectural expressions one can do to the building to strengthen those elements without necessarily reducing the square footage of the building. and i think given that the commission did approve the square footage, we would be happy to work with the project sponsor on resolving some of those architectural issues before the architectural addendum is approved at dbi.

>> i believe that mr. pfeiffer who is now working with [speaker not understood] is in full range of all capability to do that without reducing square footage, but there are subtle ways in terms of material manipulation or slight recessing which can indeed help with those issues. and i encourage [speaker not understood] i support approval of this building, but i would like the conditions by which we are approving it to reflect those concerns. thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm also supportive of the project. but i just wanted to ask on the ground floor, it seems like what's taken the reduction is the retail space. did you look at other options? i just want to make sure the ground floor along second is active and you've got the nice open space as well as one retail space remaining. >> carl shannon with [speaker not understood], the project sponsor. we lost the ability to buy the old loading dock so we shifted

the entrance to the parking garage to the loading dock to the east. we need to have a gas main room that is accessible to the street. that does remain on tehema. we do lose a portion of the retail. the critical thing in talking to retailers is how much frontage they have thev and that frontage along 2nd street remains the same. and we think, you know, quite frankly the old space was quite deep * and would provide for a great storage room to keep stuff. but in terms of the kind of activated retail that we've got, we've got a large enough space with enough frontage and we think we'll have as active a use as we would have with the larger retail. it doesn't change the number of retailers and i don't think changes significantly who we can have in that space. >> and that space can be divided into retail? >> it could be. i will point out that the grade on 2nd street is quite steep. so, it could be split. i think at this point we think it's more likely to be one

retailer than two and 2nd street, while, you know, it will be a challenge for us to find the right retail uses there in this building today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i was going to go ahead and move approval with, i think there are three conditions. in addition to whatever conditions staff has, the ones voiced by commissioner moore and director ram on treating the 2nd street -- working on the 2nd street facade, working on the tehema street facade, and the banding definition of the banding could be a little more [speaker not understood] or whatever. >> second. >> i have one question, just one clarification for me, the project sponsor. so, the building separates on the 16th floor, there is this terrace area. is that an area that is

obviously not accessible to the general public? or is that a part -- >> it's not a public open space. it is accessed by the tenants on that floor. we made a fairly significant commitment on the ground floor to the public on the open space. [speaker not understood] 2010 and today's design is a modest reconfiguration of that. before there were step in that public open space. we are now able to get a grade with howard street. we took a shuttle [speaker not understood]. i think the public open space has improved significantly from 2010. >> so, this would be a private rental area to that tenant? >> it would be a private roof deck. in san francisco you don't charge for that space, but it's available to the tenant on that floor. >> i clearly don't want to tangle with this project this late phase. you can't help but notice so many rooftop either

restaurants, lounges, bars, activity in new york, pares, l.a., even, and this would seem to me to be a good opportunity to do that. i'm supportive of the project as is. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i did mention some improvements and i studied this carefully between the one we approved in 2010. one thing that's been done and it was part of code changes, that there is now a provision that in the case of a seismic event, the buildings, whatever possible sway the building could have has to be such that it would never run into the property line. and it's been modified in such a way that that will comply with that code change that's occurred in the last couple years. and then mr. shannon also spoke about, which i think is an amazing amount of public open space within the building, somewhat similar, but much improved over that. we have at 101 2nd street not far away because this also adds

a large food service area where the folk could partake of beverages and food, and utilize the space. and i think that's -- and the improvement with making it all one level and adding the ramp for accessibility makes it a wonderful thing for the city. and having it enclosed with the ability to open the windows on a nice day really speaks well to our climate. there are times when you want the air in there and you want as much as possible. but on times when you do need to closure it's possible to do it. so, i think it does a lot of good things. i'm fine with the motion. i'm sure the project sponsor are okay with those changes. it can be worked out with staff to make an even better building before we move ahead very soon. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i'd like to have staff bring back, not in a hearing, but if we could see the final drawings in comparison to what we have.

>> would you call the question, please? >> commissioners, on that motion to approve with conditions as modified by commissioner moore, including architectural considerations to 2nd street, tehama street and the banding, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. commissioners, that will put you back to item 8, case no. 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances, planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment that would rezone parcels in the upper market neighborhood commercial district to the upper market neighborhood commercial transit district. >> commissioners, sophie hayward, planning staff. before i make my presentation if it's all right with you, i'd like to turn this over to supervisor wiener.

thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity. today before you is a legislation that i have authored relating to the upper market neighborhood which i represent. it does several things -- three things to be precise. first, it replaces the upper market neighborhood commercial district with the upper market neighborhood commercial transit district, nct, for the block of market street west of noe to the eastern edge of castro street. this simply follows along with the board of supervisors addition or extension of the controls in the market octavia plan west of castro street and make zoning consistent with east of noe street.

this change, i believe, to have no opposition and to be supported by various organizations that are taking a position on the legislation. the second aspect reestablishes the height control originally envisioned as part of the market and octavia plan which is generally proposes heights of 85 feet along market street east of church street for corner lots, and 65 feet west of church street. the heights west of church street were reduced back down to 50 feet pending an historic resource survey which has now been completed. when market and octavia controls were extended west to castro street, the height controls were not extended along with it and so we have the [speaker not understood] property formerly the gold stem property, which is seeking to expand the gym and also add apartments above.

and, so, the rezoning proposes to go up to 65 feet. i believe that this project should be capped at actually 62 feet. 60 foot height plus a two-foot bonus because the ground floor is 12 feet instead of 10 feet. but planning staff advises that 62 feet is not an actual planning height category. and, so, the legislation at the request of the planning staff says 65 feet that my understanding, my belief and desire is that the actual limit of the project would end up being 62 feet, not 65 feet. and this aspect of the legislation is supported by muncie as well as the castro to market cbd. and i will note that some have indicated that the -- this rezoning of the height for the fitness property should not happen until there is a specific project pending at the

planning department. and i don't agree with that argument because when you look at market/octavia, the adoption of the plan, or eastern neighborhoods, or many other rezonings that we've done, properties are routinely up zoned as part of a plan without knowing what the specific project is that's going to go there. so, i don't think we need to have the project pending at the planning department, before the commission, before the rezoning can occur. and then finally, the legislation would allow the off-site kitchen cafe floor on noe street to come into compliance with the planning code to provide cafe floor with a path to legalize the off-site kitchen that has had at one location or another for several decades. this legislation is critical to ensuring the continued success of an important and iconic

neighborhood business, specifically cafe floor. in san francisco and in city hall, we talk a very good game about supporting our locally owned unique neighborhood businesses. we talk a lot about how we prefer these businesses to formula retail. but our codes and sometimes our actions aren't consistent with that rhetoric about supporting our unique locally owned neighborhood businesses. we need to be more consistent and support these businesses and support their success because they are critical to the vibrancy of our neighborhoods. and cafe floor certainly falls into that category in terms of its important role in the castro/upper market neighborhood. cafe floor has had an off-site kitchen for decades on noe street. it was at one location and when the business was sold about 10 years ago and moved to a different location. this legislation simply recognizes that reality and

provides cafe floor with a path to legalizing the kitchen. it's important it step back and really view this issue for what it is. * to and just to be very clear, if this kitchen is removed, cafe floor will scale back its ability to serve food. it will have a reduced food service. it will serve fewer meals, and i assume we've all been to cafe floor or seen it at one point or another. it's very rare that it's not full. it is an incredibly popular restaurant in the neighborhood, one of a number of amazing restaurants and businesses in the neighborhood where people come to eat, to drink coffee. it is it sometimes serves as a community center, people meet there, many events there, many fund-raisers there. allowing the scaling bac