talking about this. we want to be good neighbors. we'll expect to meet with another lady she's not here. but we thought about potentially a food truck where we provided all of the hookups and things along stanford alley and accommodate a food truck and put this food trucks when the street is active like ball games. i'm not telling you we're going to do that but examining is possibility. the retail design right now comes almost all the way across brandon but doesn't reach stanford.

we're bringing the retail all the way across to meet stanford so we have some space. it doesn't have to be one retail so we could have is a smaller retailer on the corner. >> i agree with with that and it sounds like you could expand that retail perhaps one of the spaces could be in keeping with the western area. >> we've talked about the park. we're willing to examine park let's. we'd be happy to do that >> okay. and the other issue that was brought up was the access into our garage. now someone may have miss stated it was only 20 foot >> it's 25. >> is it 25?

>> it's 25 if you read the whole transportation report. we don't want trucks having to cue on standing for the record and in order to make a turn in a narrow alley it's not a varngs but an exception. it's just going to work better those trucks won't have to do a 2 point turn to get into the garage. there was some conversations about standing for the record 2 hundred and 25 square footage. we're hoping to make up for this by providing 5 car spaces those are public car share spaces but

- >> you saying many of the parking will remain? >> yes. >> those were any main questions i mean you have some good landscaping. it doesn't have to be native plants or anything and the art you've spoken to. i think you've answered my questions it sounds like you've included flexibility so thank you >> thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i want to follow up on some of those items and i want to ask staff about the planning codes department related to the parking. i'm not familiar with what those

say >> i think. >> i think what you're referring to before the eastern neighborhood plan was adopted and we had the codes provisions in hand you were asking the provisions to come as closed to those proposed at that point. we don't know what they're proposing yet so it's hard to know what we'd ask for at this point. but in the past when we knew with the plan was but at this point we don't know >> they're seeking lead code status so they have some sustainability codes. >> i think that answers though i guess i like the ideas of expand the retail space on the

stanford side. i do have concerns whether it alley being closer to the entrance you know, i think in the long-term i would love it and maybe that space would be the 4 hundred to 5 hundred square footage space. another thing about the retail space tenants could see that open on weekends. so tenants could be open 6 days a week. i understand that the project sponsor is fine with the former retail which we definitely will support. in terms of the park let. the park let's i don't know if the staff has a comment about park let's and i don't know what's the width of stanford?

>> i don't know if he were specifically talking about stanford. >> 12 hundred because it's the right-of-way. it's a different process there's a process for approving park let's >> it's not something we could put in the - >> presumably ask for the specifics of the park let's. >> and there's a question about merging the garages between the projects next door could you speak about that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the question about loading into the garage ever 45 brandon >> no, the issue could you move it closer to the other buildings?

>> we worked closely with sfmta but that the trucks could access the garage and through the transportation study we have a turning radius analysis that 85 feet would voluntary it be removed on stanford street. it's not the intention to have all the parking lot removed on stanford that's 4 spaces. >> well, i'm actually very supportive of the project. i think with those enhancements we've discussed. it's one of the better office projects. it's more responsive to the context in which it sits in. the brick and the open spaces

that are contemplated are in good form. i move to approve. i see other people who want to speak so i'll wait >> commissioner. >> i agree with a lot of the comments. i think that the building is well designed. i think this kind of no such on stanford and brandon but fundamentally it may not work well, as a onychoid out spoois space so i like the idea of bringing that retail you space to santa for the record first year i know the retail space is deeper over to the west maybe even expanding it favorite toward the ballpark to get a little bit more space to get separate retail space because

it's not very deep. but i'm very supportive of the formula retail. i think the area is becoming an interesting corridor and the project on third street. in park let's i don't think you can do a park let on the other side but i'd encourage a park let on brandon street with the right retail ends up on there. the open space again, i like the entry open space by i mean is that designed or having is there an ability to tweak that to - does that function as an open space i i guess it's open all

the time. so i would, you know, follow-up with commissioner borden's comments and agree with them >> commissioner moore. >> sure go ahead. >> dave johnson i think that jim put forward some ideas. every building has a place where the mechanical systems come together and have to vent. the explosion of getting that building closer to stan ignored is something we need to do. and there's some other things we need to incorporate as well. that corner of the building is where a lot of venting and garage exhaust have to come out. so we're going to have to work

on that >> commissioner. >> i appreciate the flexibility of the architect and the owner to accommodate and listen to some of the comments made by all commissioners retail on all sides of the baby boomer lobby and it creates a more skilled project. particular when it's on either side of the public open space. i'm generally very comfortable with the building including some of the compromises that's been created. the idea that the department considers the parking. the thing i'd like to ask and perhaps mr. rubin can answer. i'd be very intrigued to see the adjacent property coming up into the foreclose.

i'm also concerned since the next property is a very shallow property and will struggle with the ungraded open space that the two buildings have not had an opportunity to work more closely together under the guidance of the department. one possibility for that to have happened to actually flip the corner open space from the corner of stanford onto the other side where the two buildings meet or the fairly one or 23 or 3. could you compliment on both parts >> i'm actually glad you asked that question. we have been talking to 345 brandon tis the other building. for quite a while they were at

rec and park again, no it was this morning they got continued again. they've dealing with regulatory you questions and we're anxious to get going. this is our building lot and this is 345. they have is a flag lot so they've got a piece that comes out to stanford right here. and frankly we'd love to share the entry on their flag piece and have been talking about that with them for a long time but we don't own it. >> i want to jump in. since we have concerns about stanford as an alley to later

transform itself into a small place. taking the garage entrance off stanford preserves parking i think is a forward-looking idea which i really, really like to keep on the table. i know seeing the director and staff nod i'd like to push that forward. as we're transforming this part of the city into something that was completely different from it originally was very deep lots and very few abilities to have the buildings have their proper loading docks we need to find innovative techniques to look into the future. this is one of those opportunities. i'm not quite sure how to pass that onto the director.

perhaps you can comment on it >> we're also prepared to commit in whaefrp way you want to work and we don't own the property we can't force them. >> commissioners you could add an edition but you could schism to use their best efforts to work with the adjacent property owners and department to combine the abilities. we can't force the boyd property owner >> and the city attorney is comfortable with that statement. >> certainly so long as you limit it to the property owners continue to work together. >> the other property will have issues because there are

property line windows so something has to give. we're not discussing the detail at the moment but if you understand how the development works so i would leave it up to future negotiation for a caveat to continue the conversations and i'd add that to a motion and i'd second our motion >> so we do have a second. >> commissioners i believe commissioner borden began to make a motion. >> commissioner yu. >> i wanted to ask project sponsor about the smaller store fronlt. it so i would say there's a commitment to extend to stanford street but if not could the

space be subdivided? right now we don't - >> we don't have is a restaurants broker. it's a little bit larger and end up subdividing a space and in which case having a smaller space but it's much too early to know. >> i suspect we've spent a fair amount of time talking about that. i think we're going to be able to do it but i don't want to put too much pressure on dave >> okay. thank you. the points about neighborhoods serving retail is really great. that smaller space tenants are able to go in there. so maybe the best we can do again is sort of intent to ask the project sponsor to include a

small space speaker i want to ask about the c u and how can we compose something >> xhoeg an conditional treatment it can't be a conditional part of improvement. >> okay. thank you. so unfortunately again, we're in the position to ask for intent or ask for just ask the project sponsor of not having formula retail. the last thing i'm supportive of this idea of having a park let on stanford but not on branton and a i'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve and ask

project sponsor to work towards extending the retail to stanford or as far there and entertain the possibility of one space being smaller speaker also my motion would ask project sponsor to make best efforts to combine the efforts with 345 brandon or access to they're separate parking facilities by using their flag lot. it's not a condition because we can't as was state we can't work on something that's has yet to be approved and it sounds like you've worked with them already. the third thing would be to mention the park let's and also mention the commission would

like to discourage formal retail or we can't require a conditional used by whatever the particular actions are in place at that time. that would be the motion. is that okay commissioner borden >> yeah, i'll second the motion just to be sure we said discourage the formula retail. can we add micco >> well, i did at the beginning i said to encourage them to make one of the spaces smaller. >> and to get a tenant to operate 7. >> and preference towards tenants who operate weekends if possible. >> i think that -

>> me. okay. just to clarify was that a motion and a second >> i forgot something. >> commissioner. >> okay. i have two things. one on the extending the retail space on the corner this is a condition; right? >> it wasn't framed. >> that's what i mean. >> it's a condition. >> i would care it a condition with the project sponsor and how it's divided did you have to extend it to the corner. >> okay. i have a question about the grag business. we're saying yet the project sponsor has agreed to work with

the other property owner to see how to combine the two but it seems to me that well - it would it seems to me that it would be difficult because we have an approved design and unless they're willing to have their design to serve the other property it would be a whole new design and we don't know what that design for the other building is >> we actually encourage the sponsor to look at this throughout the transportation study to consolidate those two driveways and in doing that we have a design as a variance in the document. so this design has been vetted by them.

it's not been necessarily code checked by rich but we analyzed it for sequa purposes and we found no impacts >> to clarify. presuming it's not some dramatic change it would be approved by the zoning department >> very good thank you. >> commissioner. >> to the city attorney on this formula retail question could it be back to us for the formula retail use. >> no. >> and why is it (laughter) >> and we could have it approved by the commission. >> no. under the current zoning it is a primitive use there are no controls and i'm sure staff will

correct me if i'm wrong. that's a zoning determination that needs to be made through legislation. we - >> we sometimes don't allow people to build to the height limit we say that is non-formula retail i don't understand why we can't condition this. i'd be comfortable with saying no formula retail unless approved by the commission. we do it all the time >> i think what she's saying it's a permitted it's a p in the code. so it's right in the code you can't change a code >> we're not changing a code we do it all the time. >> actually, you don't (laughter)

>> your allowed to have the conditions on properties all the time. >> did you we are the question? >> i'm pretty much that the formula retail in that district actually requires a 312 notice and the neighborhoods can request a dr and guess what we'll be here anyway. >> i just want to - >> i think by the time we start building this building you and the board are going to make formula retail a citywide issue anyway that's the direction things seem to be going. >> commissioner. >> yeah, just to clarify the motion. i think we're saying in the motion that we're approving any of the garages with an entrance

that works with the owners of 345 brandon and we've had both analyzed and environmentally. so that would be what i interpret the motion to be >> deputy city attorney would you clarify. >> i made the motion there's a proposed entrance to the garage. there's also a desired preferred entrance to their garage utilizing the flag behind that and everyone felt this would be the preferred means of cease but we can't say that's going to happen but i'm saying if a that's available it would be our preferred alternative but both would be okay under the motion >> the motion is just to -

that's for the project sponsor. there is a motion >> no other comment. >> there's a motion and a second commissioners adding a condition that the project sponsor extend the retail to stanford and dividing it into smaller units and to consolidate vehicular access to look into a park let discourage formula retail and provided a preference for tenants who stay open all day (calling names) so moved commissions that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. commissioners that places you on

items for an a and b. at 72 ellis street for all additional use authorization and a request to extend the performance for an additional 3 years for a downtown authorization >> good afternoon, members. i'm with the planning staff. so it is to amend the approval for the authorization to extend the performance period by 3 years. it would construct a hotel a ground floor lobby and restaurants and excessive meeting rooms. the project was originally approved in 2001 and given extensions in 20034 and 10. it has not been gone forward

because of the economy. those down turns were precipitated by the terrorist attacks and the global economic recession. however, the sponsor wants a 3 years extension. the staff believes that an extension is appropriate since it was beyond the control of the sponsor. it's ideally located for an hotel and the attractions around union square. and it's contemporary but is reasonably designed for the skefrment you districts. however, because of the current economic climate the staff asked

for 1 year extension. this includes my presentation i'm available for questions. thank you >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon president's fong and members of the commission, director ram i'm jim rubin this time representing the hotels and partnership of brand new partnership that the proposed developer of the hotel. we're asking you to provide this new ownership sufficient additional time to continue the project. it's been difficult for releasing up to last year. although a couple of office projects did get constructed probably not profitly virtually no hotels were abilities