with no expansion of the building envelope this is something that commissioner johnson ways wondering about two if the project includes the restoration of the cottage why are there noted plans 90 in our packet and how, we approve this without the plans of recreation and restoration if it's part of the project. >> sxhifks e commissioner hillis. >> can we go going going back book to the diagram with the additional space in unit 3. can we have that up >> yeah. >> we use the front elevation

and that's fine. so i appreciate where your going to me through overall the design i like our design it survives there's a chunk out of the 5 the 4 foot set back >> the 5 foot set back. >> what's the purpose of that i get there's folks in the xhirnt requesting additional set backs but why. >> we're trying to address what we thought were good comments in the area that's the friday morning. >> what are the comments i mean what do you think a response is it view or is it impact on the cottage below and well, the most recently comments are if there's a view corridor on this site 2

should be replaced we've heard different opinions this response to the real corridor is at at western allegation edge and - >> where could you see out of the topnotch i guess driving up telegraph hill boulevard and that's my understanding and the reason for the additional notch there's two reasons that's a good view and go back i thought it was significant about the double cut i'm glad you brought that up when you look at the congress the stair stepping of union one and two and the stair stepping is at the scale of the cottage that's why we broke it down one increment. >> the overall design of the 3

when you look at our 3 separate units i want to see i think mr. morton said a more of a gap between one and two as opposed to that notch up to the time out it makes for an lorntd design but this is designed by planning commission. you know, so, i mean i get it we're responding to the neighborhood which is important but i don't know. i would kind of restore that 5 foot notch out and perhaps increase and have a space between, you know, 123w5e and unit two and three on the top floors >> i'm glad you like that we

provided a gap between one and two and there was a recess gap between three or four and between 3 and the cottage i guess your feel rather than giving the smaller slots to identify would vehicle waltz the most important and put the space in the corridor rather than dividing those and simply bundle that it becomes a 12 foot 8 number. i guess for somebody driving up telegraph hill you happen upon the one spot we're eliminating the view sfruf that staircase and in that landing on filbert. we'll eliminate that with a four story building i get kind of might that by i mean, i don't think we have to keep that view

only because it's a vacant lot built upon not too long ago ii prefer putting that notchback and making them read like 3 separate knows. on the lot like you had before >> so the net if we then don't work off this but the original proposal then the modifications i'm sorry, i understand. >> how wide is this lot on telegraph hill. >> 82 and a half feet. >> and you've got 3 feet 6 between three and four. >> correct. >> so what is that leave us with. >> exactly 79. >> seeing you already have a 3

foot distance between the lower cottage and upper unit you could add 3 feet on the first 2 floors between two and three and add another - say you put to the property line. >> your signifying is try to achieve full tranlts between two and three and . >> make them read like they're separate you're doing it between one and two and doing it between two and three our south that back so you're trying to design to look like that why not make it like it it. >> and leave it on the project. >> i understand we didn't prepare that idea today but i understand that. >> i mean you'd get at the

issues of view corridors and marge improve by get that by separating the buildings a lot of times we have the issue people articulate their building instead of building on 23 foot lots if you did a 3, 3 and 2 almost have that. >> misunderstands we see you're recommending sticking with the original concept. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> there's been a suggestion we continue to this and we're getting pretty close but i made an earlier motion in my mind the

best way to do this is make the divisions between one and two and two and three minimal to make sure their discreet unit but not exactly the same as the, you know, they should be of the same size but your biggest opening is between 3 and the cottage to allow the view and have a less impact on the places on fillmore, however, the numbers workout. >> can i follow-up because if you do that that's a compromise. >> i think it gets awkward you've got a set back between two and three and there's that gap between one and two i be if this gets continued this could be an alternative but this gets more muddled if you don't do

that between one and two and two and three the set back. >> it relates to all the units in a different way. >> commissioner moore arrest i would support a continuance and take the whole basket of suggestions you've brought which are trying to be responsive to all the public is asking for not only work with the west side or the weather but try to do different public results can be achieved. the marine issue is that there's consensus about scale and height and massing here and you have all the tools to model the building it doesn't have to be modeled as eloquent as you're doing in this presentation but basically relative to the tape debris including where you take

the corridors from. and i personally building there was some constructive ideas to people can fully understand how our developing the project is kind of in a way i extend my sympathy to you i read the staff report the parking garage is for storing cars so you're having 3 thousand square feet for storage and the staff report says the cars will be not driven that often but to the 0 stored he i'm going to the words but storing three or four considers in $3,000 square feet is you tough

i leave you with my sympathys and we'll discuss this it later that's my suggestion >> commissioner sugaya and what is that a motion i think that commissioner antonini started with a motion of continues. >> i did not give a date if i could ask project sponsor how long you'll need. >> if you made a motion then i make a motion to continue and second. >> i'd like to see the proper date we're moving into the summer ohio it's this will be difficult and interim discussions with the people and the department together and the community and commissioners if i may in looking at our advanced

calendar not until the summer ohio it's so september 11th or 4 accounting date. >> the middle of september it is fine. >> i don't know if he were being asked about how long we need we could do all the suppressor in the week we would like to have a hearing no, we can we actually can get it done commissioner sugaya. >> no, i'm saying the calendar won't allow it. >> on the other hand, oh, not in your head we were hoping to have it before your recess i'm not sure exactly when it is. >> the calendar are extremely long for the next few weeks. >> and the fourth is filled. >> august 7th is filled.

>> the two august dates. >> so september 4th probably. >> september 4th and 11 are open. >> i'll say the fourth. >> commissioner moore suggestion. >> okay. we have a new problem and that's it's time of year our architect will be gone so when the the recess concluded did small business suggest september 4th. >> it's our first time back. >> okay september 4th is that a date that works for everybody. >> yeah. >> done. >> i have my name up. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i want to clarify so the

project sponsor and architect we're talking about the kinds of things that have been discussed the space between the buildings we have not pinpointed it should be in between the buildings instead of at the end it should be explored i think and at least i'm open to my of those depending on what they look like t there was concern about penalty houses and how tall and look at not only lowering the height but actually eliminating the whole thing and not adding roof-decks and lighting for the filbert steps was a concern or a suggestion that was made. playing are the width of the

buildings to increase the space between. there was some discussion there was a discussion may not be a discussion about a set back away from the steps as a way to gain a little bit for comfort for the people traveling up and down the steps those are open for i guys to play around with and i'd like to say in the interim period if we can figure out whether or not the cottage is part of the project or not. and if so we would like to see plans or renovation and restoration of the cottage plans. if it's not then it's not part of the project or if it is we want to see something addressing that >> commissioner antonini. >> all of those things and you volunteered some sort of

lighting open the filbert steps and you might have been foliage that could be done to the steps will be appreciated but everything we've suggested there maybe some others. commissioner johnson >> this is a little bit of confusion commissioner moore made the motion and quickly seconded and no date attached i think september 4th. >> no, i know you suggested the fourth i was surging the 11 it has four items. >> i would be inclined to move it to the 11th come back back it's a we want to spend time understanding and more public discussion on the diagrams of

what our thinking in responses to not condemning the discussion i want to ask director ram whether or not dbi have any alternatives this is a public infrastructure and unless you work with dbi for the additional latin-american. >> correct it's the department of public works not dbi. >> i'm sorry that's they're jurisdiction you can make that suggestion with the department the public works. >> and then are they city standards and or are you going into a design. >> it could be latin-american or transparency looking at the building when they have lighting on the stairs that's the other suggestion. >> so a motion and a second.

>> based on on commissioner johnson suggestion september 11th. >> okay. so commissioners there's a moved and seconded and to continue. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner joksz arrest commissioner moore arrest commissioner sugaya arrest commissioner fong arrest commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7 to zero. >> commissioner. secretary we're off the screen. >> commissioners that will place us on items a and b. formula retail and large-scale retail controls consideration of

a draft owners and case amendment to the planning commission planning code section formula retail uses and 702 neighborhood commercial and formula retail uses and file ordinance introduced by supervisor mar. >> so i want to apologize to the public and to the supervisor our calendar says this item was at 2 o'clock it was not clear we should have been more clear on what it meant i know that supervisor mar has innovate meeting so staff wants to offer him the podium. >> thank you commissioner president wu mr. ram and commissioners, i want to say i've been watching are for 6 hours i'm amazed at the stamina

and amazing all of you who have been here. i'm going to cut to the case i view our ordinance before you as a continuation of the 2006 super bowl protection act that was passed by prop g overwhelmingly where there's a crisis of small business feeling the crutch of connective boom and a struggle to maintain hair brick and mortar type of businesses in diverse corridors san francisco voters in 2006 which the vibrant and commercial corridors not strip malls. they don't want an overrunning of neighbors with chain stores

by maintain a unique character of neighborhoods that gives me communities sometimes quirky it attracts tourists as different commissioners brought up when ted egging con did it's study there was people from all over the world here because of the quirky neighborhoods but those of us who live here it brings a pride and enjoying joy of mixture of small businesses. i want to say i draw from the past generation of people that placed other than the ballet the small business protection act but also small business leaders and the accreditation that will be with the board of supervisors as we move forward feel strongly

that san francisco has to protect the small business credit cards in 1962 when i he was born wal-mart was born with their super store i draw this from the researchers that look at chain stores and their impact on the small business corridors and one book talks about the rise of the chain stores and big box stores a lot of the piece of this legislation has costuming come from the budget analysis about two years ago they look at the food box retail that going into a central part of the city after the year one of the wal-mart going in about 3 hundred retail stores 0 would close within one year and two

years it's doubling or more i think the economic impacts are critical so part of the legislation i proposed has an economic impact report but i hope you look at that. and also two years ago as other supervisors were looking at the formula retail erroneous i pass the ordinance that included banks as one that was left out as formula retail use and i think the current proposal has a number of other proposals and strong unit city with the proposal i want to thank emily and allocate for their incredible work and the two proposals are similar and with director ram and others we're trying to come to a commonality

so one measure moves forward it's almost there i want to thank the planning staff for their hard work and others from strategic economics a lot of of the analyze it i'll have for the issues that come forward at the board and i'm hoping that the planning commission as well. my proposal is really in total agreement with the planning department and i think that the other supervises that have different measures on formula retail moving forward will be about 6 of us with different pieces this is trying to integrate the best practices but my key goal is to give neighborhoods that maintaining and strengthening their vice in having a say p when american people application for a formula

retail goes into a merchant corridor that's not an radical overhaul for the legislation but about closing loopholes and making it strng in some places by maintaining the neighborhood voice and the lineups that are behind me and strongly support 24 don't want weakening of the small business protection act but gives clarity. i'll say it's about leveling the playing field for the small view point businesses in our neighborhoods i feel are the backbone of our economy and the legislation comes with countless hours of the planning department staff and my staff in the case has put together this with the neighborhood coalitions as well and i think it's important that i first point to a couple of key

finding from the formula retail study by the strategic economics. i'm not going into go through the list we have short time by one key point as i pointed out earlier the crisis from brick and mortar independent locally owned businesses there's rising rents it's not only residential but commercial rents that's a key finding and also the strulgz e strengthens of brick and mortar the internet type businesses and i rising from the other types of that businesses on page 8 of the report i'll read verbatim this allows the planning commission to reopened to case by case you concerns raised by the community members the majority of the conditional

use or cu applications have been approved and the majority of formula retail cu applications have been approved, however, in cases with the community members have reached a clear consensus the formula is not desirable and appeared at the commission haefrgz they've been withdrawn so the process is working i think in many ways the effort and the proposal before you with the planning department and my proposal with others is to clarify and to modernize and clean up the exist policies also on payment 7 of the report the strategic economic site they're willingness to go through the conditional use so there's flexibility and formula retail are likely to put in the

application where they anticipate a positive reception from the community so it's flexible and favor for the formula retail businesses as well the page 7 the community response is important all the sites it says in general community reaction depends on factors as competing businesses and whether the tenants are filling long-standing vacancies and they landlord the upper first amendment from 14 to 27 or the ocean corridor it's heavy middle-class area in the upper fillmore this community members

talked about the big bravenz and the perception that formula retail are less engaged with the contingency along ocean boulevard they approved the services its hard to establish relationship and in 1st district there's formula retail supporters oh, especially, when those formula retail businesses filed long-standing needs of the neighborhood but then opposition from starbucks and geary on fourth avenue and other efforts another times there ever some opposition and other times accepted to the process is flexible and depends on on the community wants and needs. lastly page 8 of the report says

that by creating disincentives for the formula retails to lock here the formula retail lower costs for independent retailers that's again, the issue of the rising represents that impacts by making neighborhood commercial place the formula retail help lower rents and reducing the costs for independent railways. in conclusion the strategic economy report gives decide makers the reason to have a dialog that reaches a reasonable outcome for residents and businesses. i think there's no storage of formula retail if san francisco there's 12 hundred and 50 formula retail stores in the