based on the stone growth witnessed in the p dr sector over the last years and the desire to see this sector continue to thrive something is working in this town and they've set out to kill it. in the earner neighborhoods there was p dr all the time until they commissions the study which concluded that p dr couldn't compete with the industrial sector. to allow more tweeters in one of the last under developed parts the city the real motivation here is more office space. the p dr is being throne under the bus. this permits other institutional

uses that includes assembly and childcare and educational services including dorms and religious facilities. every one of those use is stroll incapable with the p dr. once land is converted over into the more professionalable uses that will never go back and you'll have gutted a complete fundamental city who says go back and read the eastern neighborhoods plan. thank you. any additional any public comment on this item?. okay public comment is closed commissioner moore >> while i'm generally interested in how e studying how

p dr remains a thriving use particularly knowing what sf made and small merchandising businesses do to the study i need to know it is comparable with p dr for example, your chocolate person was moving out of the pier is going to locate in a building with offices on top of it. the machinery vibration noise and odor you have the delivery of trucks you have the pickup they are continuing e constantly coming and going are by themselves incomparable with

office obvious. you need to look at the study and you also describe very clearly what types of of these merchandising use p dr are compatible how you are how got you are but you're able to deliver building types and costs and attach of realistically uses can be created. we're not talking about building shop houses like in asia where indeed you have any bread maker anybody merchandising open the ground floor of their building and having upstairs office or housing uses important we're talking about a new hybrid building toyshop i've not seen

successful examples because mostly we have separated those uses as being incompatible and alternative merchandising uses are indeed soutd for being able to be compromised in those buildings not to talk about the fact that the building toyshop is more expensive to build it's safety and a nuisance etc., then you have to have realistic strategies knowing the difficulties we have with housing already. affordable merchandising is almost a in his normal >> commissioner borden. >> i'm supportive of this i want to hear from the lady. i think i used to work for a

technology company and we did merchandising but it's changed. people have is a misconception about the machinery merchandising and maybe you can talk about the kinds of things wee people are doing and how it can be compatible >> in our data i think we're blessed there's only one sf made so 18 percent of the actual merchandising manufacturers a couple of comments commissioner moore the building policy and thinking through the loading and you know how do we construct building if someone needs to put in a piece of machinery and dig into the concrete floor we'll see if you can include them in

code or flushed anti during the process. the general breath of the sector in this city we're mostly manufacturers of pursuits. we're selling pursuits like bags and seeing a resurgence in fashion and debar time design and merchandising happening in the city as we see some of the displacement of the factories we've used no, the mid-market area we're increasing the pressure to the neighborhoods. the second largest sector and largely by employee is food and beverage and after that we have a new emerging sector a wide range of pursuits that marry

design like furniture and jewely and desktop merchandising sector like cd percipient makers and now folks in the business for other printers. the average size of a manufacturer in this city is 8 employees. we recognize that the real job adjudication potential is in companies that have 8 to 20 employees and are typically in small spaces from one hundred square feet smaller. the 8 employee were in a 4 hundred square feet office in

the back of a tech shop. they can fit into a one hundred square feet space comfortably to handle noise boimentd and other things perhaps an old school merchandising would have been of great concern. we see them existing in areas here but the projects will be reviewed that these that will take advantage of the component of this legislation >> that helps i think the people have the spiritual it's inexhaustible - incompatible. the eastern neighborhoods is

staying the same the additional overlay that's happening. we saw those vacant acidities we see the need for p dr it's a new section of the code you've identified a subset of acidities maybe a uncodified section but it's clear and straight criteria there's not worries that that will change over the next legislation and those are sites that are currently zoned p dr >> yes. >> that's the note for housing but some other use. >> i have a couple of thoughts i think it's interesting. i don't think mop has the answer but those are interesting questions. i totally understand and agree and support of the deserve to

create for entry-level jobs for san franciscans but some of the building are good-sized buildings that have lower height; right? maybe some of a former car repair that are two or three story building they're typically a 10 story building and i guess sf made are not huge operations. i'm curious as to how protecting those p dr locations maybe their opportunity for housing locations or development that might help offset the affordable housing crisis that we have. i have a bunch of mixed feelings it's good to support this direction but opens up other questions this is the right

thing it doesn't solve all the problems but it's worth protecting but it's not a solution for everything that's a jumbled reaction >> commissioner hillis. >> have we not seen additional p dr space around the city developed. >> not in decades. >> and is that so the rationale i mean you've got to limited to 20th street is that how it goes. >> better transit when you start moving north of 20th you have the bus lines returning through the neighborhood and we

are going to start doing how density part of the subsidy programs we're putting in the sticks you can only do so much parking but it has to be a practical solution. the thing is your transportation to management going through the bayview i don't want to say shuttles but something will have to happen >> you all talked to p dr developers i have not met any clearly it's being development not in san francisco do we talk to vendors. >> that was not part of the scope i'm not sure p dr places are being on that scale.

merchandising is tremendously - the plan did with work a number of architects who understand was it takes to build a p dr building the ventilation and other things are more costs. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> obviously your piece of which was in our packet card without any map so it's hard to understand when you specifically point out to the a few parcels have you thought about turning this into a specific study with

the code change dependent we have quite a few areas where this might applied ramp making this site specific to the site i'm only asking a question. >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> can you make it board specific. >> we're proposing so the legislation in front of you that was in the paublt was december 17th legislation. in all conversations we've had with the workforce we met with the small business commission and meeting with them again on monday. there's a lot of changes or changes some include the specific sites and our proposal puts that into legislation maybe an uncodified section not in the

code which makes a su d but list the specific parcels. that's a long way thing there's also several other changes that are coming forward it's premulch we had this hearing after the packet was delivered and the small business commissions next monday so by the time we're come back to you on the 17 you'll have more information to take care of the concerns that the staff and the mayor's office thinks forwards the golds >> and you'll include maps. >> we'll include maps. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i have a followup on that. i think it would help to also have a some data that shows for

those parcels what the development potential is for office space >> sure. >> he the resulting amount of net p dr to give us the magnitude of this whether it's one hundred thousand square feet or a million whatever. so if we could get that. and, secondly, i think mr. cohn's comment is how can you assure that once the offices are built that any kind of p dr is actually, you know, going to populate that space and how it is subsidy that word we're using going to be applied to those p dr spaces and assure some

affordability there >> if we're saying one of the rebates is that one use can subsidize the other i think it's important to get our hands around that. and lastly to the supervisors offices i think my concern has been parallel with jim's and there's a huge number of blocks that are currently aimed that p dr uses that are being looked at different and their might be something that the supervisors can get air hands around to see what that don't in terms of losing existing p dr space. those are my comments >> commissioners, if there's

nothing future the next item. commissioners that places us on item 15, 16 organization and b for cases. it requests for planning code text meantime. item 16 a is, 2013.628 a requester for determination of compliance and item 16 b will be considered for the zoning administrator a request for variance >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners. item feigning and 16 a and b constitute the new project on union square.

i'll begin my presentation which to contradict the calendar la county the mayor is the preliminary sponsor of this legislation. i have an approved form in the files and any commissioner wishes to view it it will amended the planning code to allow a secondary structure to be removed in whole or in part and reconstructed if it's floektd the c-3 r district and if the planning commission can have that permitted. and a reconstruction 6 a noncomplientd structure will result in a net dollars decrease of the planning structure. we have to make the finding to utilizing light this provision

that it will enhance the retail designation that the project will result in an increased benefit to the public that the project will enhance the character of the property, that the project will result in a net decrease of ground floor area and that the project will result in a structure that more closely conforms to the floor ratio limit and not result in a reserve impact for the historic zoning. that the project will not obstruct public corridors and a lastly that the project will in the significantly impair light and your to a bud property. the department concluded that as drafted this legislation would only apply to one property 3

hundred street. to the apple store was the genesis they felt this meantime was generally good policy. however, we said that our recommendation to beforehand the scope of the project raise concerned and we've revised the original intent that applies to only one parcel. that that only applies to one parcel it's printout to make this clear which is why we're recommending that the one that effected property be referenced in the ordinance. this recommendation is not substantive. the downtown project pursuant to planning code section including the finding i proposed. and before the zoning administrator is for the

transparency 1 foy .1. it was heard yesterday by the hpgs. the property is located in the downtown retail will project and a is category 5 rating. the subject property contains 5 hundred and 5 square feet complex with two above ground where it as a retail structure. it has an slaeld plaza and basement below the site. it involves the levi store. it replaces the retail structure and in a minute's the hyatt structure. it will have a rectangle plan

and the back of the house is a narrow wing between 9 buildings along west street. in total the proposed proposals will have a net decrease in scapegoat. the retail will be reduced from 4 to 2 stories and replacing the it will to a rectangle. and incorporating the existing fountain destined into they could be figured plaza plaza it at the end of the stairs remembers that the sponsor architects will give a brief presentation but i want to focus on regulatory policies. it will require a determination of the policy as a design review. the commission will need to make

the finding and lastly as previously mentioned the zoning administrator will have to approve the barrier. the department has received additional comments expressing opposition to this project and as well as the hotel expressing support i've passed out copies now. the department has received a letter in support of the union square district. the project meets the provision for raining a prominent tenant by improving the design by reducing a shadow and improving the public access while remaining the fountain.

the commission first recommend the proposed ordinance and approve the project are condition. their contestant b upon your approve that concludes my presentation >> thank you project sponsor please. mr. secretary i'd like to submit a response to the s c i yous letter of february 4th. thank you.

i'm going to start while the team is setting up the delay. i'm rick the department director with apple. i'll be giving a brief overview and then the architects b will take you through the design. we're thrilled to be here to talk about the project. it's been a great yourp. this project will be the flagship for apple if built in union square. this will be more iconic than the glass could you be no new york city. bits a world-class design we believe fits into the district and is a great educate for san francisco. we spent the last year working with staff planning, working with the ar c the h pc to

enhance our design. the process has made that a better project and we role appreciated the input we've had working with everybody. today we are going to review the scion that was the design that was approved yesterday. i'd like to take time to address the ruth fountain. and mainly the miss characterization of how the process was proscribed and at the time, we presented and concept the fountain plan would developed enough to present and not shown on the documents that were presented. that was never apples continued or the hyatts intent to disrespect the fountain.

the xylophone we provided is elegant it makes the fountain the focusal point and moves it 6 photo 3 inches so it centers open the new stairs. we've taken care of the design so it's the same dimensions. it moves forward about a to the more assessable to the public. the relocation process has been questioned a bit and that, too, you know, it's not been represented properly it will be moved as one complete structure. i wanted to clarify how that's being looked at. we've had great community support with the union square

business improvement district and other community organizations throughout san francisco and role they've received a lot of good input from retailers looking forward to the draw that this store would provide bringing people to union square. today we're seeking our approval the project and look forward to ronald to any concerns you may have. thank you >> good afternoon. i'm james mcphotograph working on this project here in san francisco. i've got a presentation so if i could get the overhead.

okay. so as previously mentioned the prong is in the conservation district we got approval. the existing building we feel is not very suited to its assignment being a triangle form so when we first looked at the site in particular we felt that little rectangle building was for sensible and i think the other thing that attacks >>the fact we have public spaces on either side of the project it's important in our design. the current plaza space behind the existing levi store is we feel under utilized it's a less comfortablela