they have a plan for public health. the project applicants get an individual to monitor compliance. the individual designated to carry out the monitoring is an appropriate contact. this is the department of public health. in addition, we have presented the interim environmental review documents. that sorts fourth quantitative monitoring to be carried out as part of the project and also the department of public health is responsible for implementing that. if more maturing is needed, this will require it. hopefully that answers your

question. >> thank you. >> i wanted to mention that every time there is a vacancy, a retail vacancy, everyone brings it right. so far, this was brought up for norm reason. >> i don't know if it was ever raised around the site. someone mentioned that maybe there should be some information collected to see if there was any affect. this makes me nervous. sometimes it is hard to attribute any one thing. there could be different reasons why there would be a certain impact on small businesses that does not relate to the whole foods. there would have to be a more comprehensive look at this issue. i don't know, you are sitting

here. the you have any thoughts on this? is this something that you would have any opinion on? that topic was raised a lot. >> good afternoon. i can really say at this point but i will pass this on to the director ended when it comes to formula retail, we take this on a case by case basis. >> ok. >> my comments are along that line and i wanted to point out the activation of streets. for a street to be really active, both sides of the street need to be active and bright. that particular block has been given a pass and the recent past

has been dark. i want to point out the intersection there, the great public art, i am hopeful that this project will shed some light on that and people began to appreciate this more than they already do. i understand the difficulty. i am ok with doing this if we want to look at the ticket the zones. i am in favor of the one-year checking to see how that is working but i am not in favor of proposing that condition. >> one speaker brought up concerned about the glass on the market street aspect and certain months of the year and might reflect quite a bit. i would hope that the project

sponsor continues to work with staff and make sure that that is not a problem. any reflectiveness will be mitigated through the type of glass used or if there is a possibility to have less glass on some surfaces. i am happy to hear that this will continue to be home of the miracle deal. this is a different time of deal. i bought the first family station by the mayor in 1981. -- family station wagon there in 1981. >> -- and if anyone can speak to that, i don't want an exact date. >> this is slated to be under construction late next year. around august-september timeframe if everything goes well

far as qing as far as qing is is truthfully and i have been for many years since they moved to their present

location, but the present location of rainbow, that's one of the biggest backups on the street there is in the city. so the queuing there is massive. housks that was before the new proposed regulations were put this. i do agree with the comments that have been made so far by other commissioners. i think the ray in which you have treated the three streets separately as far as the architecture is concerned, is very, very good. we have projects that come up to us that do not understand the difference between streets like delores and 14th and market, which are very different in their aspects and really should be treated differently. we have had problems with that in the past. but i think -- i think you have done a very good job with this. i hope you do not think that the one-year -- concept of reporting back to us is anything unusual.

that's something that this commission has done many times in the past. perhaps more frequently now the city gets a lit moral crowded. we have had instances where the conditions of approval have not quite been kept up the way they should be and it is a way for us to double check, not only the -- that the operator is doing what they're supposed to do but to -- that we were right in the way we put those conditions together. it is as much of a double check for them as for the city. we're not singling you out in that regard. >> thank you. commission. if i could make a couple of clarifications. in your request for report, one year, i'm assuming you mean one year after the occupancy of the grocery store. to be clear about that. we have been advised by our city attorney just to clarify the connection between the motion and the improvement measures that we should add a condition of approval, if i might read it into the record that the

planning commission imposes all of the measures listed in the mmrp. thank you. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with modifications. the most recent is the improvement measures that -- that were just read into the record by miss an dore. the other modifications are in those particular order is that -- the -- the plans that are before you are not the plans you're approving. >> well -- >> it -- >> well -- >> it -- >> it is -- respect this is delores street. the delores street -- streetscape. >> the delores street streetscape is not. okay. i just want to be. >> i want to be clear.

>> market and the treat are not accurate on the plans before you. great. you're urging the project sponsor to reconsiderate deliveries after 9:00 a.m. >> seriously consider deliveries after 9:00 a.m. but it is not imposed as a modification there will be a one-year reporting back to the commission after occupancy and that -- that report would include information on queues, loading and -- and a.m. track conditions. >> right. >> that there is -- one other one. >> the notice. >> noticing to tenants that they're moving into an area that has recycling. >> recycle center. >> then the mmrp. >> she said that.

>> i mentioned that first. >> then the m.t.a. conversation to encourage the -- that was just sort of -- >> that was -- that wasn't part of the motion. joan on the motion as we have just restated, commissioners antonini. bore do not. fong, moore. sugaya. olague and miguel. all ayes. that motion passes unanimously. >> commissioners, you are u now on item number 17. just for the record i'll mention once again that item 16, the d.r. has been withdrawn. >> delain? >> our on item 17. 2010.0099 x for 333 fremont

street. >> good evening. the planning commission originally approved 340 fremont street in 22 houn 6. the profpblg -- 2006. it would construct a 400 square foot tall building with a podium to include 332 dwelling units, including 40% two bedroom and three bedroom units and have off street parking for 332 vehicles provided in a four-level underground garage. less than 50% of the parking spaces would be independently accessible and the remainder would be valet spaces. the project would include 5e9

bicycle spaces. no changes to the original project are proposed at this time. the planning commission granted extensions to the performance period for this project in 2009 and -- 2008 and 2009 with no changes to the project. this would move the date to 2011. the department only received one letter in opposition of the project and then new residential development. the department recommend that is you approve the extension requests with proposed conditions. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> comments from project sponsor? >> good evening. thank you for hearing our project in the midst of a long day. my name is ezra mercy. i'm the principal of jackson pacific ventures.

my company along with arch stone smith it the sponsor of 340 fremont street. i'll keep my comments exceedingly brief and just offer to be available for questions should -- should any of you have questions. we're part of the rincon hill plan. we were approved as part of the rincon hill plan which was a man that allows the development of high-rise residential buildings in rincon hill which of course is downtown. it is near transit. it is near jobs. we continue to believe that the rincon hill plan represents excellent planning. we're glad to be a part of it. the ren we're before you today is that we are in the midst of the a -- of a still severe economic recession. part of the consequences of the globaling and national recession, it is not feasible or not possible to finance the construction of the project like 340 fremont street, a 400-foot

tower which would be a rental building and has three stories of below grade parking. i'm -- i think the building on develop -- developing at hawthorne street is the last high-rise building to be developed in san francisco. that's 3 1/2 years since we started it. i'm particularee familiar with the particulars of the market and what it takes to fbs the -- finance the building now. my partners arch stone smith are certainly among a very small group of the most experienced, most skilled, best cam eist -- capitalized countries in the country who are in the business of developing high-rise downtown residential housing and it is our -- it is our -- definitive opinion that the prospects for building this project simley don't exist today. we're requesting a one-year

extension. we have a huge investment in 340 fremont street and it is our plan to stick with the project and make good on it as soon as it is possible to do so. i'm got to use my entire three minutes. that's the summary of my request. i'm available for your comments and questions. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> i want to go through some dates. 20 2006, height of the boom, height of the expectation that is we could have lots and lots of very, very tall towers on rincon hill. 2008, the market crashed. one of the main drivers of the crash of the market was housing. the housing pricehaus gone through the roof and what happened as a result of the

crash is massive loss in value of housing. all over the country. san francisco is kind of like there little teeny island that hasn't had the whyte wipeout that everyone else has. it is not that we didn't have inflated housing prices. we have had and we had really high expect dations -- expectations and we had high expectations this was a sustainable way to function. guess what? the chi says not. what i am cautioning you is -- this is your third extension for this one. next one, full-court press. to say, why are we continuing to keep these projects alive. they have no affordable housing. they are hitting a real high part of the market. i question whether the environmental review is valid. it is based on data that is five, six years old.

what quev is a site that is right next to a free way entrance. the freeway entrance sites are more attractive than other sites because you could do reverse commutes down to silicon valley. what is the valley, to the city, to the people needing housing if all we're doing is pumping up the sly of housing at the really top end of the market and the people that really need the housing is the 80 to 120% which isn't being served? that's just regular working folks. i won't be able to afford -- i'm not part of the market for this, maybe you are but i'm not. i question the extension -- we just postponing space -- facing up to the fact that maybe rincon hill is based on an economy that doesn't exist. thank you.

>> to approve actually -- >> second. >> ant neney? >> yeah -- this mr. mercy who came up and spoke is actually the develop war has gone forward with a development recently during the hard -- during that, he may have brought that up. if we're repeating ourselves. that was during the -- the depth of the lowest part of the market and i think it is going quite successfully from what i'm hearing. so i'm optimistic that we're going to see some production in the near future on this. i'm support ive of the extension. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask mr. bernell, do you have the conditions of approval in front of you? >> yes. >> under item 3, i see this validation is valid for a period of 24 months. aren't we saying we would be

extending the authorization for 12 months? am i misunderstanding the way it is written? >> just to clarify, the conditions that were passed out today were the original conditions that -- of approval, which were intended to be included in the pact and were accidentally left out. the conditions for the approval for this motion to extend is only for 12 months. that would be -- and it is specifically called out to november 13th of 2011. >> i would agree with -- with some of the concerns miss hester raised. i'm not planning to oppose steppeding the project but what is of great concern to me is that in 2006 we're still approving one-on-one parking near transit for 332 units. somewhat a contradiction of where we're going, particularly in light of the fact that we're building the terminal three blocks away.

there's something not quite right. i'm not going to single out this project to discuss that but i think there's a policy discussion which we sooner or later need to have. >> in this particular developer is unusually trustworthy. >> i'm not going to single this one out. >> i'm not singling this one out either. there's issue can we need to address. >> you're correct, commissioner moore and commissioner olague. your cop meants when you look at the application of june 15th of 2006, you have to -- i -- i presume an environmental though four starting or at the latest 2005. -- that's going to put us five or six years back on the viretal. the parking has changed. the area has changed. so, i'm not going to ding this one but i think it is a -- it is a heads up that there may in the

near future -- for anyone listening be a different thought in the department. >> commissioner an tin niney. >> one thing that is unusual about rincon hill, they have short periods of approval and like other projects where the al use is three or five years, i believe these were single years. the period of time relative to the other prodge secretaries not that great. in fact, 301 mission, the millennium, i believe i was part of an approval process in 2003 if memory serves me right. it took them until probably 2006 or 2007 to actually begin building it. it might have been later than that. so sometimes it does take a while for this to happen. i think that as far as the parking is concerned, things are different. certain neighborhoods are -- probably can get away with certain parking and others need different parking and that's

probably going to change -- never going to change. we'll deal with that. i think this is a good project and i hope it it starts in the near future. >> linda not here. >> secretary had to step out. >> in order to move ahead, there is a motion i'm just going to ask for the vote coming down the line. >> commissioner? >> aye aye aye aye aye aye aye. myself is aye. if staff would record that. >> commissioners, for the record that motion passed unanimously. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, you now are on item 18. 2652 harrison street. it is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow construction of a four-story apartment building which -- with 20 dwelling units. >> good evening commissioners, sanchez with the manning department. you presented a questionable use authorization under section 134, 140, 175 e 1 and 215 a and 303 to demolish a industrial building and construct a four-story 40-foot tall multi-family building. it proposes 20 residential units and 16 off street parking spaces and two market rate units or affordable housing units. it is located at 2652 hairston

between 22nd and 23rd street. it is a pipeline project. sponsor has elected to utilize planning code 1756 to seek approval under heavy commercial, the c.m. zoning district and 40 x height district. under the neighborhood's control, it is urban mixed use and is within a height and bulk district. the sponsor seeking conditional use authorization to provide a rear yard that doesn't meet 134, 14 requires that the rear yard at the lowest level have a dwelling unit. it does not provide a rear yard where two units located that provides that at the second level and above. the response err seeking conditional use authorization to for the comply with exposure for nine units. the section 140 requires dwelling to open into a rear yard. these nine units open on to the rear yard which is not code

compliant, therefore, the project doesn't provide exposure for the units. the project sponsor seeking conditional use authorization to establish dwelling units within the c.m. zoning district. commissioners project proposed 20 dwelling units as an infield development site within an existing urban area which permits dwelling units. it addresses the need for two bedroom units as nine or 45% of the units. the project provides housing on site. it is consistent with existing structures. the project should provide 25% lot depth at the second level and above. it is proposing 22.8%. this would provide a rear yard equivalent to the code minimum for those floors, second and above. commissioners, regarding public

comment, the department received calls about the easement at the year. it was designed so that if the easement is found valid, it won't require significant changes as only proposed storage area for tenants would be lost. give esche the findings, it is recommended the conditional use authorization with the fact that the sponsor provides 250% of lot depp eth at the second level and above. i'm available for questions. thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening. here's -- i'm here representing the project sponsor. we have -- before you for two reasons, basically for housing and the district and relief of rear yard setbacks and the

dwelling unit exposure. i wanted to just address a little bit the fit of the building in the neighborhood before we address the code issues. 202652 harrison is in a mixed district, with across the street structures of one to two stories. varying materials on 20 wide and 55-foot lots. our site here in the milled is on the opposite side of the block where there are -- industrial buildings remaining, building that we intend to replace as housing is -- is -- a light industrial building that is out of use right now to our north western and to the south refinisher furniture. and also in the thaked, there's a relatively newer multi-family housing projects that have gone

in 40-foot tall four stories higher density of which we're a part. our proposal is for high quality materials and taking cues from the neighborhood warehouses and apartments and residential development. we have a strong base that responds to our neighbors. industrial buildings and the massing is broken down into two pieces. so, that -- it responds to the smaller lots across the street.

so at the ground floor, we have recessed entrys for two private residential dwelling units and then the common entry for the rest of the building, the remaining 18 units. we see a mixed materials, stone pace, horizontal siding, metal, break metal and aluminum windows. -- and then the finishes. i think you have this in your pact. again the building divided into these two larger elements. the labor again. here's the materials we're looking at. i apologize for the scale. stone base. resin panels. metal. windows.