a costco shirt. >> i just hope that you can be bigger than that and be supportive because i think if you show a good model of what it means to be a formula retail by our standards and not maybe san francisco but maybe you can influence the ones that are already there to continue. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i sat there approving ralph lauren and not because i wanted to, but at that time the community has commitments from the ralph lauren store which was quite substantial. they went from training minority salesperson out of

the fillmore to giving the store to community events and doing all kinds of other things. there was at least three or 5 commitments from that company who came out from new york and stood here selling the community all the wonderful things they were doing. and from what i hear, nothing has remained active. i go to the fillmore frequently and i don't see any minority being trained or present in that particular store when i go in there i mostly leave because i cannot interact with the sales people. it doesn't work for me. everything is over $600 anyway, even if i want to look, i have to get out of there. anyway, ultimately what i will be looking for even if i vote against you today because of what i have explained to you is a personal issue. i think it's up to you successful and

on a day by day on going manner and that's how i think you are a good store with 10 or 13 you serve someplace else. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second on the floor to approve with conditions, commissioner antonini, border, hillis, moore, no, sugaya, no, fong, aye, wu, no. that passes 4-3 with commissioners moore and sugaya and wu against. city clerk: that places you on item 16 a and b. item 16a:2013.0007bx b. bendix; 4155 575-91144

81-85 bluxome street - south side, between 4th and 5th streets, lot 018 in assessor's block 3786 - request for a large project authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 329 and 845.66 for the new construction of a five story, 65-foot tall, office building of approximately 55,000 gross square feet. under the large project authorization, the proposed project is seeking exceptions for 11 an obstruction over a sidewalk per planning code section 136 and 22 an off-street loading space sidewalk per planning code section 152.1. the subject property is located within the western soma mixed use-office wmuoo zoning district and 65-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative code 1234 >> >> item 16a:2013.0007bx b. bendix; 4155 575-91144 81-85 bluxome street - south side, between 4th and 5th streets, lot 018 in assessor's block 3786 - request for a large project authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 329 and 845.66 for the new construction of a five story, 65-foot tall, office building of approximately 55,000 gross square feet. under the large project authorization, the proposed project is seeking exceptions for 11 an obstruction over a sidewalk per planning code section 136 and 22 an off-street loading space sidewalk per planning code section 152.1. the subject property is located within the western soma mixed use-office wmuoo zoning district and 65-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative >> item 16a:2013.0007bx b. bendix; 4155 575-91144 81-85 bluxome street - south side, between 4th and 5th streets, lot 018 in assessor's

block 3786 - request for a large project authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 329 and 845.66 for the new construction of a five story, 65-foot tall, office building of approximately 55,000 gross square feet. under the large project authorization, the proposed project is seeking exceptions for 11 an obstruction over a sidewalk per planning code section 136 and 22 an off-street loading space sidewalk per planning code section 152.1. the subject property is located within the western soma mixed use-office wmuoo zoning district and 65-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco >> item 16a:2013.0007bx b. bendix; 4155 575-91144 81-85 bluxome street - south side, between 4th and 5th streets, lot 018 in assessor's block 3786 - request for a large project authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 329 and 845.66 for the new construction of a 5 story, 65-foot tall, office building of approximately 55,000 gross square feet. under the large project authorization, the proposed project is seeking exceptions for 11 an obstruction over a sidewalk per planning code section 136 and 22 an off-street loading space sidewalk per planning code section 152.1. the subject property is located within the western soma mixed use-office wmuoo zoning district and 65-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative code bashgs bshgs # # 1234 12341234 if i can can you to keep things quiet, i would appreciate it. we have other cases to consider. >> good evening commissioners. brandy, department staff. you have before you a request for a large department authorization to demolish a two industry industrial building and construct a building approximately 55,000 square feet at 81-85 blukz on street. the -- blukz om

street. as of today there is proximately 2.1 -square foot area. the 55 thousand square feet office space represents the amount available. as part of the large project authorization, the project is seeking exemptions from the awning projection requirements. from the front office space loading requirement of planning code section 2.1. the department is in support of these exemptions because they enhance the overall design of the building and they improve pedestrian environment. at this time department staff has not received any opposition to the project. however since the publication of the case report, i have received three e-mails in support of the project from residues -- residents in the building. i will distribute those e-mails when i -- conclude my presentation. this is met the approval and with the zoning district which is to encourage office use. the project represents an allocation of approximately 4.5 percent of the large cap office space currently available for office allocation. the project is designed to be compatible with the neighborhood buildings while enhancing the neighborhood's quality design and blukz om street and come applies with the requirements of the planning code and the policies of the general plan. finally it will produce approximately $1.8 million to benefit the city. this is the end of my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon commissioners. i am representing blukz om partners, the development firm. we are here this afternoon to explore a few slides here to share with you

some of the background in leading to this meeting, the office project located at 81-85 blukz om street. i want to thank our project team that is here with us today. our architects mitchell jones and tamera as well and our general contract or bcci who has been instrumental in facilitating all the work to bring us here and gladstones, our land use attorney as well. our

building is located on bluxome street. it has not had much development or redevelopment at all in the past decade or so. as you can see our building specifically located at 85 bluxome. it's a multifamily building. directly opposite is the bay club which you are all much more familiar than i am. that is our direct view. our proposed development is a 5 story office building. the intention that we had in designing the building both from an aesthetics standpoint is the subject of the remainder of the presentation here. if you touch on the design itself, one of the key prerogatives that we have is bringing a rim on board was to

really capture the identity of soma and the industrial aesthetic that is prevalent both in historic buildings that have been preserved and in the newer developments that had recently emerged and pay homage to in trying to bring out the more industrial aesthetic with the exposed field. through this process we have actively engaged the neighborhood, the residents and the merchants and i do apologize for the size of the text on that screen. we have engaged just to give you a sense with over 35 neighborhoods merchants, both small and formula retail falling on from the previous hearing. all of whom have expressed either support or certainly not opposition to the idea of bringing a large

concentration of density that in turn would be their customers that would support their businesses in an area that has been struggling with density due to the fact that even though it is a heavily populated area with traffic due to the cal train, it's not an area that is one, it's open to office users or other dense users in the past. i know that's something that is changing here and we are hoping to be on the forefront of that. as brittany did touch upon, we are contributing about 1.8 million in development fees and are very proud to do so which both help the local infrastructure and more importantly in

non-financial terms to help alleviated some of the congestion issues especially going down to mountain view and located a block away from cal train and providing a hub that is bicycle friendly immediately adjacent to an artery that currently exist and hopefully within walking distance which was really our goal which was to attract that in the city and help alleviate some of the issues we have on the 6th street onramp and on 101 trying to get onto 80 going east. a couple of the other development areas in the conversation that the commission is obviously

partaking in currently that we are very excited about has to do with the central soma plant and the open space in particular. the open spaces in the area immediately adjacent to 85 bluxome are going to provide a great amenity both in the neighborhood, our future tennants and we believe in concert with the development that we are spurring on this block is certainly a positive outcome for the area. the bluxome park itself directly across from our proposed project site is going to provide a significant amount of open space that should attract certainly the appropriate clients and tennants and visitors to facilities that we are designing. >> a couple of the other

aspects of this development that we are very proud of is not just the introduction or the use of lead and sustainability but taking that sustainability featured to the next step in the form of the dell us wellness standard which was recently announced a year ago and focuses solely on or primarily on the occupant and occupant health and satisfaction which is purely for energy reduction. there is sufficient legislation out there in terms of title 24 in cal green and so on that addressed sustainability which is made for environmental standpoint and we are looking to incorporate wellness into this building to consider the health and happiness and satisfaction and so on of the occupants and we are actually proud to the the first office development in the world to adopt this standard and bring it here to san francisco. the company is based in new york

and they have not developed this anywhere else. one additional topic that i wanted to touch upon had to do with the facade articulation and in the past week and a half since the planning notice had gone out we received numerous feedback and phone calls from the public that had to do with the actual ground floor aesthetic. while i'm not an architect i certainly appreciated the comments and understood the intention and the 1020 perspective of the folks that were voicing these thoughts and as such had made a slight modification to the ground floor facade. if i can share with you what the

facade is to look like and i know this is a little tough to see, but we are going to show you a detail here. we previously had a base that was about a foot high, foot 1/2 high and off the ground both for safety reasons, security reasons and so on, but we understood that to be less in inviting. we now lowered that to six inches which would be the minimum in order to essentially provide more glazing and more open field and more transparency both inside and outside and allowing that activity that bluxome park is coming across the street hopefully in the future. with that, i just wanted to thank you very much for your time and consideration and humbly request your support and here for any questions you might have. >> thank you. director? >> i just want to add one comment to brittany's

comments about what the commission has raised about the area and couple aspects you asked us to look at for a couple of interim standards for public, private open space on development sites. for a number of reasons, let me say we are working on those and will schedule those in the next 4-6 weeks to bring to you. for a reason we would recommend not applying it to this sight because this project has been in the pipeline for some time. it's fairly small and it won't make sense to require open space on this particular parcel and we think this project provides some improvements that are contributing to the public realm. i also want to let you know there are not a number of projects in the immediate pipeline. we should be able

to get our proposed interim standards to you before you get the next project in the city. i just wanted to let you know that. >> thank you for that update. opening up for public comment. megan? >> hi, my name is megan. i live next door to the proposed building and i'm in favor of the project as is without any open space at the bottom because i can tell you that in the evening it's rather dark street and not very well populated and it's a little scary to have open space down there. i heard there was some speculation about somebody trying to get ground floor retail down there which i'm also opposed to in my building and would in invite open storefront, there is a lot of open store fronts on kingsley

and it's not well received at all and it will invite more graffiti on that street because it's quite quiet and it's not really a lot of foot traffic. so, myself, as a homeowner and the rest of my building are in favor of the project as is. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> sue. i'm very familiar with this area. i represented the tennants of this building a long time ago. they were concerned that they were going to be pushed out by the "live work units" that were built there as well as the upper income housing next door to

them. i also represented the tennis club users, not the owners when they fought against their building being demolished. times have come to pass and my -- silk screen shop has gone. you had the railroad present to you last week with the grand plan for the rail yard site which is a half block from here. you have also had presentations on the central corridor study. there was staff when loma prieta happened and there were deaths down at bluxome a block away. people, this is not solid

ground. it's marsh. i want to talk about the jobs and the housing and the affordable housing program. you have on page three of your report with the transit impact development fee and all of which is instrumental in getting passed in this big struggle in the early 80s. they are getting credit for demolishing tdr. there is no way about this. look at this. office development pays $13.21 and they are getting credit for demolishing. for me it was the building. this was a t-shirt factually. but they

get credit of that which is worth $11.07 from t idf and $17 credit for south linkage. if the planning department doesn't say, hey, they are losing pdr and we should consider whether they should get credit for demolishing pdr on transit fee and housing fee are not doing their job. why should i be their only one who reads these and telling you what this is. i'm telling you this is wrong. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: i think this is a

good project and think the office in this area should be a future home quite a bit because of the fourth street quarter which we are now studying and this is between 4 and 5th and the rail yard which is a little further away and because it has all the benefits of being close to transportation and answers some of the issues that we are a fronted with where we are so close where people can get to places very easy by public transit. it makes a lot of sense to me and they are contributing some development fees and also i think it's a good project and i would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner borden?

can you address this? >> as an impact fee we are required to do a nexus study and increase by a project. if there is use that has a certain level of impact we have to subtract that from the impact that are being created. they are already represented on the site. that's why there is a reduction based on the reduction. you are paying the net increase on impact which is what is being done. this is standard throughout all the plan areas. it's part of impact fee law. i guess the question is if the use were not operable, currently not operating today, is that impact still the same. it hasn't been a t-shirt factory

in i don't know how many years. if it was operating as a t-shirt factory last year. >> it has to do with the permitted use on the site. a pdr could have gone in without paying any impact fees there because there was a pdr there. it's created by one use. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i wanted to respond to one particular aspect of the project, this is in particular to the ground floor proposal that the ground floor open space one distinguishes the building and bottom middle top, although it is not a high rise building, it's a more interesting building. it's not making any particular other ground floor such as pulling back and adding an open space for an occasion --

indication of an open space with including appropriate nighttime lighting so people can look into an office floor which is a nice thing to look at will ---en liven the alley. the club across the way is not the most attractive. i would ask the motion in deed suggest that that particular proposed change will be adapted. >> as the maker of the motion, i'm okay with that to continue to work with staff on design, but it looks pretty good in your materials that you gave us. i would assume it would be fairly similar to that. >>commissioner kathrin moore: i'm basically saying that what

is a simplification that is proposed i think it's the way it should be executed minus additional volumes. >> thank you, so there is a motion and a second that has been amended and both parties are agreeable to approve with conditions both the large project authorization and the office development authorization however to continue to work with staff on a design as it's been amended and read into record by commissioner moore. on that motion, commissioner antonini, moore, hillis, sugaya, fung, and commissioner president wu. that passes unanimously. commissioners that will place you on item 17 for case. item 17: 2013.0518c

o. masry; 4155 575-91166 2775 van ness avenue - at the southwest corner of lombard street and van ness avenue, lot 030 in assessor's block 0503 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 209.66bb and 303 to modify an existing wireless telecommunications services wtss facility operated by at&t mobility. the proposed macro wts facility would replace 66 panel antennas, with 99 panel antennas; with 33 of the antennas mounted on the uppermost portion of the east facing building facade. related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in the parking garage. the facility is proposed on a location preference 2 site co-locationn within a rc-3 residential commercial, medium densityy district, and 65-a height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative 12341234 >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, i have to recuse myself from this because a dental office that i own is next door so i'm not allowed to participate. >> do i have a motion? >> i will move to recuse. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? >> can i just make a motion. >> there has been a motion and second to recuse commissioner antonini, hillis, sugaya, commissioner fung and president wu. that motion passes 6-0.

>> good afternoon members of the planning commission. the request before you is to modify a wireless telecommunication facility located at 2775 van ness. it's located at the southwest corn of lombardy street and van ness. it's zoned rc 3 residential commercial medium density. the proposed modification includes the replacement of six antennas in the west and south facing facades currently under construction as well as new antennas on the east facing facade. the three additional tennants will be installed to the penthouse. in order to meet the visual impact of the

tennants, a collar will be placed below the antenna to hide the key loop below the antenna and back opportunity to cable towards the rear of the building. as this site currently contains at&t mobility, the site is considered a colocation location site and a preference to the guidelines. the applicants did hold a community meeting to the project and a number of the community members acquired about the health effects of the project. the carrier did provide a third party review of the coverage capacity gap needed by the additional and antennas. staff support the project as approved and complies with the guidelines. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you.

>vice-president cindy wu: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, i'm the director of external affairs for at&t california. i'm with the consulting engineers who conducted the frequency test and the third party analysis included in your packet and we rick lens. we are seeking your approval for a conditional use permit to modify and existing wireless facility at this location. this approval will allow at&t to upgrade this facility that will be adding one sector which is an additional three antennas for a total of 9 antennas. the associated equipment to support the additional sector will be located on the roof outside the public view for

screening. we ask for your support as we did work to improve the network in the area and meet the needs and demands within the city of san francisco. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, let's open up for public comment. i believe i have no speaker cards. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner borden? >> i will move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further there is a motion and second to approve. border, hillis, moore, sugaya, commissioner fung and president wu. that motion passes 5-0. places you on item 18