architect made an attempt to explorer other options but it site is indeed very, very close to the freeway that raise those issues didn't allow them to do much else than what their proceeding the question is then do we prefer more informal landscaping or more form landscaping the distance it is what it is that's my observation of the challenges we processed and in kind we approved the project we liked the massing and commented on the stepping the projects and with the joining streets that is a positive comment the question how the shadow coast guard 16 feet from the face of balcony to the edge of the wall to the edge of the

freeway is handled so i basic building an attempt to be made though i'm not but i'm still prepared to support the project in spit of it. >> for my clarification mr. brinkley can you come up for a second. >> just for clarification is your shop in the space that would now be opted out by this building or next door. >> yes. it is 249 we're 249 pennsylvania and curious to the project sponsor my attempt to accommodate or create office space. >> you can have a seat i'm calling up the project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioner christensen my name is zach spencer a member of the spencer family the project sponsor i

wanted to say that we're very sensitive to the situation that mr. brinkley is in we have been attempting to relocate him for the past 18 months to two years it is still something we're working very hard do want to be the reason for his business to have to shut down so as a concern of ours we just want to doing everything we can to keep his business operating. >> i'll point out that the size of the business is approximately the same as the pdrs on site and the spencer family has many industrial buildings similar that are available for mr. bringingly to consider to move into as far not

engaged despite the offer but hopefully in the future his business can be replaced on site we've offered to relocate him to another site just as the hard are war. >> is there none of our business but discussion or dialogue between - attempts okay. i'll point out i feel that pdrs evictions have just as important as housing evictions and this is a particular interesting business it supports a large industry of san francisco whether that is shooting television commercials or movies or for magazines, etc. or catalogs a whole big industry that depends on small businesses like this i'll do so a dialogue to be continued we can't force

but, but hopefully, a continued conversation. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> mr. brinkley if you can one more time i'll as concerned as commissioner president fong about the evictions of pdrs evictions based on the project sponsor they've mate a good faith to relocate you what happened. >> well, i - was offered a couple of spaces they were on a second floor i went to look them but i need a ground floor where a yard we can park our trucks your customers come and they bring their on vehicles often and we'll load them up for them they'll back up their pickup truck into our shop we'll load

the gear in there tea and they'll drive out i can't use a space in a warehouse on a second floor assessable by a freight accelerator that didn't work and what is shown another spot not developed yet there's no real access for vehicles from the exterior no street entrance yeah - it there hasn't been a a lot of great spots i'm open and receptive. >> one more question for the project sponsor. >> mr. spencer any buildings that can work. >> we've shown him and he's expressed concerns why they won't work and worked with real

estate brokers that do business to try to find locations outside of what we own we've made attempts and have anything out there the first person i'll want to send it to say mr. brinkley. >> i hope you can find a home thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> the question i'd like to ask the commissioners the following last time we heard this project we continued it solely on the argument about the height of the wall and the potential impression from the freeway that's been classified, however, over the course we never even were made aware there was a pdr displacement of any kind so we would video actually be able to approve the project as the wall wouldn't have been there i want to ask myself

including all of us i'd like to have the department next time around we have a need of pdr displacement for that to be disclose it didn't come through the backdoor we're not fully informed i appreciate the gentleman writing us a letter on the 12 hour and having us to consider it i would have now wanted more resolved yeah, we'll work together before we approve this project bus encouraging them to have a discussion with each other has left us as potentially the bad guys, i know the need for pdr protection we don't quite have the tools in place on the other hand, when this type of situation is explained to us we can be

emphatic what does it help to resolve it not but a concrete encouragement i'm saying intentionally an encouragement for conversation. >> so - >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. california law is extremely stretched with the rendering and that applies to the city requiring a pertaining to enter into any negotiations with any particular tenant i'll caution the commission about including any kind of condition on any approval that will require negotiations with a particular tenant or in any way run afoul of the california prohibition on rent control. >> i present that but that doesn't preclude of encouraging anybody. >> it would be better not to

include any such condition in the commercial. >> commissioner koppel. >> i'd like to dovetail over the city attorney's comments as opposed to the prior hearing confidence they've done what that is necessary i'd like to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with continues as amended by staff in this motion revised motion submitted to you commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong no snaufts commissioners that motion passes 6 to one with

commissioner president fong voting against commissioners that will places us on items 12 ab dtx you'll consider a downtown authorization and the zoning administrator will consider a variance. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and honorable members of the planning commission the item before you a request for a downtown authorization for a development of a new industry on howard street the new structure will reach 4 hundred plus or 5 hundred feet plus regarding the mechanical equipment with studios and one bedroom and two bedrooms for a total of three hundred and 34 dwelling units with 50 dwelling units provided onsite as affordable the project will contain three hundred plus square feet of residential uses

within the structure including approximately 78 hundred square feet of retails on the ground floor fronting howard the sky brej continue the project site and the park of the transit center is a part of the component off-street parking with the car sharing and 34 class 1 bike parking spaces will be provided in the basement levels and two living spaces will be within - additionally 27 class 2 bike parking spaces will be provided but along the howard and the frontages project is located within the c-3 downtown office special use district the contributing special use district and the commercial to special use district and a 4 hundred plus height and bulk the the subject property developed with a 6

parking garages that was approved in 2005 the project site a 12 thousand plus square feet lot with a 74 frontage along housing and 73, 10 inch in order for the project to proceed the commission must approve the downtown authorization with competitions for the following planning code for street wall base kr6 the tower separation, rear yard section 134 and ground floor are current one 48 and upper tower section 63 .9 and bulk compliance with the exceptions it described in the draft motion in the packet and the department finds their warden and meet the criteria established with the planning code in addition the project requires a variance with

the section one 40 and 58 percent of dwelling units is leads into howard or an open court as defined they don't comply with the sections the zoning administrator will need to grant the variance pursuant to the variance please note a minor publication to include one condition of approval for transportation to demand management tdm measure approval i believe jonas has handed that based on the departments continued work with the policy that support the development of sustainable system in san francisco that will add 6 new tdm measures to the program

standards this commission approved on august 4th and florence that the trafficking review of residential proposals under administrative code the entertainment commission determined the hearing on th project will be needed the entertainment commission heard a hearing on september 20th and the commission made a motion to remedy the standard continuous administrator section of the code the entertainment commission hemmed on the other hand, recommend this planning department adopt the development permit for this project the project sponsor concurs with the conditions and those conditions are drafted in our draft motion today, the department has one letter of spoort from the action housing coalition and increasing the supply of well designs and well located housing at all levels of

san francisco on balance the department supports that with the dwelling units provide employment opportunities within an dense walkable urging - and activate the howard and la tom with the streetscape improvements and the bicycle spaces and has the transbay to focus new housing in a transit system for streetscapes the department recommends the approval with the conditions as proposed and consistent with the general plan that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions and project sponsor team is here and project sponsor please. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners my name is adam i'm the director

of development for crescent heights we're pleased to present howard this is a project we are replacing a surface parking lot with a residential consistent with the design plan and fulfills the housing requirement with onsite affordable and have a cutting-edge sustainability tdm features with the monitoring and car share and bicycle storage with the electrical car charging and other features to - our architect glen is here to present the design and our colleague is here to answer any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'd like to start by saying this is a very exciting - can i have the monitor please this is an exciting project you

know enough about it through the page but mid block site adjacent to patoma and through lot site one of the things that is interesting about the site it is a unique sight but e site but challenging 33 feet wide not a straightforward design we this had to be creative in how we adapted a building one of the site the area of the site is 12 thousand square feet the lowest ground floor or the tower plan is 9200 square feet and at the very top the tower narrows to 75 because of bulk restriction here's some videos of the area as you can see howard street is getting developed one of the streets not

developed in the transbay district an empty lot adjacent to one of the building one and you wouldn't feet tall to the west we're adjacent to a 4 story historic office building 60 feet tall and after that that is wide open and towers fairly far away from us with the transit part to the north of us as you can see from the section we have 4 levels of below grade parking storage and on the 7 floor a connection tattoos contributing park district transbay park we find this a valuable connection we are working closely with transbay to see if we can get it approved we'd like to have a pedestrian bridge from the park this is

unique and appealing with the interesting the ground floor plan we working closely with the planning department on this we set the building back in patoma to have a wider sidewalk with a public elevator at the ground floor to the 9 floor to connect i across the bridge a passage through patoma this is a lot to compress into a 12 thousand floor plate given the car storage below grade and the on-street parking loading we came up with a unique plan and i think we're all happy with the way it is turned out today. >> here's the view along howard street one of the challenges was the massing we wanted to massing cohesive we

did a lot of work with the massing the because of the building with the square project and also did a similar approach an patoma street we're adjacent with the parcel as you can see here we have a because of building retail and passage at the ground floor and 6 stories and then the retail on the 7 floor above the other here's the bridge idea this is a is again, we need confirmation we can connect to the park and we've include 9 thousand square feet of retail this lob a view from the transbay park looking at this bridge it is about 35 feet wide in terms of the distance from the park to the building

heres a section of the building as you may know we tried to do with the design of the building it is narrow we tried to create those variations in plain and on top of that those different tushgsz one of the bites of the design we lacked outdoor space we had a design that actually was embracing balconies as an idea another layer of turkexturt takes away from the glassyness and creates it to the skin of the building. >> 92 square feet as you can see from the configuration of the site we worked our magic to get the units to sit within the

site like i said the next door we have opened sky and in all directs we have the core to the west side of the building because the verifies of the - the greatest views towards the east towards the bay bridge with incredible views and 72 hundred square feet that includes the core a small building and here's the overall view from looking from the south looking towards with you so on the lends left-hand side it parcel f is in the process of being designed the salesforce is in the rear and oceanside that sets a place

of 5 hundred feet with 8 hundred plus thousand foot towers that concludes my presentation. i'm here for questions thank you very much. >> opening up for public comment (calling names) sonya. >> hi i live on natoma this is in my neighborhoods i'm excited about that beautiful building more were there no housing i noticed it is outside of your purview but enthusiastic about the bridge to the park he heard the trends is giving the developer a hard time and making him pay a fee that's ridiculous everyone know the successful

park has any entrances and exits especially with an slated parks i'm worried about an elevated park the more valuable that will be so for the public it will be good to have the bridge thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon corey smith appreciate to speak we reviewed the project in the middle of september we endorsed the project i think that is highlighted in the previous presentation given the location and the lot size our members were impressed with the product that came out in terms of for the details given that lot size really

impressed with the way they connect to the transbay term to tie to make sure everything is opened up affordability we were happen it was onsite and encouraged the project manager to have the incredible and transit rich location we love the total amount of bike parking for the car share and we - all in all we're supportive and ask you to pass it. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. i'm supportive of this project i think that is a great design on this relatively narrow site i do - i agree with sonya we should encourage and the staff should encourage transit to make

the connection above the park kind of high-up there i think those connections will add a ton of interest and activity to that park i'll encourage anything we can do to work with them to make that a reality one question for the developer and architect if it didn't maple the connection what happens on that floor is it easily converted or. >> most likely we'll turn it into an amenity floor it has a high floor to floor ceiling one combines of amenities for the residents they can be for - could be for guests but that's the game plan. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i'm supportive of this project i think the height and everything works to narrow it is a narrow

lot and great project just a couple of things one i also highly, highly encourage tjpa to work with the developer to get it project to the 9 floor i agriculture with the public commenter many exits and entrances will go a long ways towards making it successful the one question it wasn't immediately jumping out clear to me how people are educating the ninth floor the elevator to the ninth floor and one other question. >> supervisor you're on the ground floor okay. i know - the, probably see - >> i see the i i'm looking that the public elevator.

>> that takes you up. >> you're walking tolerate residential lobby. >> you can go to that or natoma. >> it is actually, we setback the facade on natoma no door an outdoor open space the sidewalk extra wide eats elevators is right there is really a public elevators off of natoma the way to get there. >> oh, great that wasn't immediately jumping out to me. >> the access from howard street is an additional thing we're working with on the planning department how to make the building more permeable you didn't is to go all the way around the plain clothes to get to natoma. >> i'll say one thing about that just as a comment so for all i happen to live in an apartment building that is

residential and commercial so just in terms of our design i'm hoping you're able to keep this i think that is a great amenity in connecting the neighborhood and the park just be is more cognizant you know this the residents is a residential association in our building will do everything they can to protect the space one of the ways that happens where i live and other buildings have done the - i can't openly go - a key to open that door i feel like do something about doing that will close off the access to the public elevator if you need to reconfigure our design floor take into account the residents of building will want every procrastination to make sure the residents can get to the residential floors i'll hate

for that protection to mean the liquor in that first floor is closed off maybe the elevators a keyed off think about understood. >> i'll make a couple of brief comments i think the building is handsome and pushing for the bridge more activation i'm supportive. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner moore. >> i'll comment on the unit design the specific unit design came later by the examination we have a large number of units that require a endorse or variance the building itself is designed in a manner the majority of units are well-designed and will be able to deal with the one 40 requirements the issue of the

future buildings obvious the towers separation in a manner and not as exemptions parking space because not only a small size for downtown but dealing with irregularity on the lot having said that, would one in their wrapping up the elevator that is complicated but perhaps being for rented for people that temporarily stay in town rather than as a permanent residence the rest of the units is fine and i'm very supportive of the project as it mapped as well in the downtown and i'm definitely in support of the bridge particularly in light of the fact the park itself including access is not what it was when it was approved at the commission i make a motion to

approve with conditions. >> if i may quickly i mean, my thing is not working correctly we totally agree we've been working with and talking with t.j. about the bridge the goal that park has as many access points as possible to continue to work with tjpa and work with them to make sure that happens the important part of this project and grateful for the project sponsor to and a agree for the passage one of other steps to make sure those black permeable is access to the bridge and the terminal is as convenient and possible but definitely work with tjpa to try to make that happen. >> second. >> technical. >> thank you, commissioners there iis a motion and a second to approve with conditions. >> commissioner hillis

commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and zoning administrator, what say you? >> on the variance, close the public hearing and granted the requested variances. >> commissioners on item 13 clay ton street a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners chris of planning department staff the item before you a request for conditional use authorization to demolish a 2 story system and construct a 3 unit residential building within the r58 and height and bulk district planning code section wifrz the conditional use authorizations is requested for

between within the rh3 zoning district with 14 hundred and 11 square feet two three bedrooms and 2 bathrooms and bicycle parking spaces are on the ground floor not seeking any competitions sirens is publication the department has one phone call from the current attended the the subject property coercing about the timing of demolition and go inquires requesting more information about the project and includes the questions about the impacts of additional parking in the neighborhood and the loss of views another area resident sent a letter of opposition with the architecture integrity i have copies and to remedy the project brown be approved it will replace a

single-family dwelling with 3 family-sized dwelling it is in compliance with all the plausible requirements of planning code and meets the general intent of the residential design guidelines that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners our firm represents the owner of these 137 clay ton street they bought the property in 1985 and lived there until 2000 they relocated to san diego to be with their college aged daughter now time to move back to san francisco in the neighborhood they love as chris mention the project site is 12 thousand plus located

in an rh3 per the categorical exemption to 26 of this year the building is not a historic resource quote the the subject property is a good but in the definition example of revival some kind of during the turn the century many more distinct residential buildings have been found from the hate ashbury neighborhood it 19 mass integrity little neighbors to the left of the the subject property face hate street abutting the property a commercial and residential the adjacent on the right 3 story building continuing uphill 3 and 4 stories up to 12 hundred units

and the project is a new tradition elementary school located in the block and across under the the subject property that is 3 stories with ranging from 10 to plus units so on this exhibit the green is two to 4 unit buildings when is what we are seeking the blue is more than allowed and the the orange the only single-family that's where our building is located. >> the owners as i stated want to move back to the neighborhood they don't need all the living space of single-family home it does have some narrow obgyn spaces due to the setbacks and the basement that can be used for storage due to the non-compliant the kitchen has

not been update and within full bathroom we looked at doing on education e addition it would have violated code section 317 we looked at raising the building, we looked at doing additional projects and got it exhibit that is new today so this is the existing building section dash here and our proposed building section so the existing building is raised off the ground the ground floor is raised up 3 feet if we want to raise the interpretations is now saying. >> succumb can you use a red pen i can't see your dash line

at a be that would be great thanks and that's the existing ground floor plan the second plan here and the restructure and there's an existing basement storage down below. >> thank you if we wanted to try to raise the section they consider that to be a demolition of horizontal plan and then we have to keep 50 percent of vertical element which again due to the site setback and acknowledge we want to build further into the lot that is over 50 percent demolition so under 317 sociolet me get to into the proposed

project. >> on the park bench we spoke world war iii nearby homeowners and spoke sparingly with the master tenants of the property and as chris stated the timing of the communication construction is a concern that's one year we'll look april or may of 2017 and in your record that was given to you could i there is an allegation of a wrongful eviction we have our lawyer to speak about. >> good afternoon. i've david i'm a san francisco landowner attorney with over 20 years experience i was asked to look at the rent board record there was an alleged wrongful eviction with the sub tenant was given

the notice prior to moving in didn't involve the owner and the matter was resolved approximately 2 years ago. >> and just could summarize some of the cu for the 202 c it is the only single-family on the block and the only two-story the majority is multiple units with adding 3 bedrooms and one thousand plus square feet of living area such use or feature of the project will not be dreshl to the health or safety of the neighborhood in line with the policy codes and guidelines les here the accessibility and

traffic patterns not effected the existing building has no park we're closing in replacement 3 vehicle and bicycle parking spaces and then more specific about the residential demo criteria pursuant to the 317 the existing houses inform code violations for a sanitary condition not a historic resource the owner is going to occupy one of the units but two of the anothers will be residential unit and the existing house didn't compare to the economic diversity in the neighborhood and binge it sclerosis to the neighborhood character the exist you know single-family has a monthly rent of 4 thousand

plus not affordable those days with the nuance been brought online i believe the rental will be less than that they'll be smaller overall the existing unit size is i'll check 2200 and the largest unit we're proposing is 14 hundred more affordable by design let's see here - >> and then last but not least the replacement project substitutes the 3 plus remedy rental with one two bedrooms and three bedrooms and two additional units will be rented their 7 to 8 hundred square feet smaller the building due to more efficient lay out with the circulation, however, the overall liveable area is xafrnd

and in conclusion, this establishes - the sub standard building will be 3 family-sized quell the project complies with all the residential design guidelines we remembering ask you approve the project as proposed thank you. >> opening it up for public comment. >> afternoon i was expecting to speak that is off the cuff i'm the master tenant david is referring to and a couple of things i want to make clear yes, it might be the only single-family home but home to four individuals that is four people's lives that will be flipped up and down because of this and people that work in

nonprofits team in san francisco i want to make a difference and found a house that was affordable and now i'm trying to release that i'm going to be punched out and does know where and the timelines and the notice that on the same level in terms of like big posters on the house without for warning it created a lot of stress in our own households in terms of what is going to happen and you also neglect the fact a neighborhood mixed use communities people have been there for years and they know the people when we were there and caught off guard by the proposal the people on the other side of the house

they're selling their house their views will be directed your attention u obstructs and san francisco a transient neighborhood i know my neighbors names it is key even though you know in most cases we're losing that and a lot of the neighbors are asking me questions i don't have the answers and he feel that we talk about keeping with the district and crease for opportunities for people to live they're a lot of poor people and what they're facing a rehab and school and take into consideration and the number of years with the demolition that has happened a huge ammonias to

the neighborhood i know a lot of the neighbors and community members are up sutro set how it impacts their businesses and hayes street within a block closed down just a lack of transparency that hat has not been available in the process when the landlords intended and i only learn like a week ago he was planning it move and no discussion about how it will impact us in the allocation so a long story short - is there any public comment on this item not seeing any - >> sorry i stepped in but what is the - can i ask

questions. >> yes. >> you can make statements whether or not you get an answer. >> so it is beyond forgive me waits the preside what's the protocol but we can have the dialogue although we're having one right now you're raising a question about this particular process and the process. >> sure. sure and she brought up an interesting point i ask you consider to make sure all protocols steps are fold and make sure the zoning is done right she raise a valid point don't want to have properties my rent has gone through the roof

now i understand the property value and a skyscraper in front of our house that will ruin all the property zoning is important i don't want to have the people probation officer bought that i request that i consider doing a review before you make the final decision. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner vice president richards. >> when i read the case packet isn't like the other full decisions that we approved in the past you have credibly substandard shaft on a big lot you're getting units their work nobody that living there we continued one last week and i look at this building and even though the gentleman didn't raise it's historic - the

california criteria for historic resource integrity of that it is used by the california acts of integrity materials workmanship and association the property retains it retains all the original materials the detailing and workmanship it is not a historic house but a high-level of you know integrity and it we see places falling off they are foundation as i look at the photos it is a beautiful house didn't mean the project sponsor can go in the past and below it out and put a white box the house is incredible with the tower work i have heart burn on this one the project sponsor

representative said well, since we were getting it we'll go into the demo and take the whole building down i'd rather you have a demo we'll build around it and often to get rid of it we talk about the neighborhood character for here san francisco is one of the cities around every block is a surprise on this block the house is a surprise there are more single-family homes than people give the block creditor this is one of the surprise replacing that with a 3 unit kind of non-december capital improvement plan building because of not a good trade off now a tenant displacement for people that want to see displacements the see is face of displacement probably pays one thousand a

month in rent one bedroom in my neighborhood i have a property on saturn one bedroom is 35 hundred one one bedroom unit is more than people are paying i can't support this absolutely can't support this. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i share some of commissioner vice president richards concerns about this project that is a cu this is different than the prestigious think dr their code compliant we have a cu their elevated level of review is that necessary and desirable i kind of follow commissioner vice president richardss comments about i'd rather seen a project that expands you can expand this building you know contextual surrounded by building that are taller we want to see a unit added and expanded but inform

demo it whether we're calling it for a demo or demoing it i think we're doing here this approach troubling i live on the mosaic side but walk here it is a mixed bag of single-family homes and a multi unit building the big building on the corner i understand but as you walk closure to the park around the north south street their smaller single-family home or two unit building very much in the style this neighborhood between mosaic and the park tends to be all built around this same time period so, i mean i don't think i can support that i'm troubled if we demo this building it is in december sent condition and

has a lot of historic integrity just because there are other buildings kind of around the neighborhood that are also built around the same period that is what makes it interesting again i don't - i'm not against expanding the building or looking at a demo but residences around the buildings kind of digit and add the unit but i think what we're asking here is not in my mind necessary and desirable i like the fact it adds unit but done in a different way adding a smaller or in-law unit and contextually deals with the height and bulk but retain the character and

integrity. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to add a couple of comments to what commissioner vice president richards and commissioner hillis were saying necessary and desirable for the building to have the same sounds like building an accurate discrimination by the applicant described that is a substandard building they don't come together as one the contrary evidence the building can be expanded with minor variance but that's not been brought forward we're thrilled presented with the fact it can't be done even if the only option sins we're well aware the demolition of these types of sister-in-law building is indeed like other decisions i'm going to be very cautious to go against any of the policies that are very

clearly described by the department their eloquent and anchored in many areas of the general plan with the together with the mayors protection i'm unfortunate not able to support what is the item before you today and commissioner paskin-jordan. >> thank you i was i don't know that i can support in project i'll say that keep consistent how we look at our policies there are no add a lens and say i don't think i can view this project as a opportunity project that type of project their ramp shacked or in lot coverage so the property or there's some other mitigating circumstances i look at the historic resource support or the other information in the case file i don't see this an, an opportunity site and so i think

this is kind of one reason he i don't then going to the next step of saying well, if if so an opportunity site what are we getting; right? so we have or a small cottage i'll say okay it's a an opportunity site the next step if what is property a good trade off especially, if we maximize the lot size if a great trade off i don't feel this particular project meets that level i don't see this i wanted to say that note just talk more but to say that just to put agent of a little bit of continuity in our decision not so it is a cute house you can't do that project i see under a

thread to logic. >> commissioner melgar. >> i don't think i have anything to say by we're going losing our soul tremendous character. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> a couple of things i do applaud did project sponsor for coming and opening and showing you us indeed a demolish demolition we have a plumbing permit and the whole building comes down and back in oh, my god the building came down and a gun to our heads in one of the neighbors the building was back super size and i'm glad you came forward and honesty about what you were doing and not gaming the system on the flip side i applaud staff for asking for the histories beef bench asking that on all dispositions it is

disingenuous to report on a eviction in 2014 i had nodding there was a current tenant in the building i thought that building was vacate because the vacated documents from the 2014 i guess just cause evictions i know we have another appears to be just ceasing cause eviction you don't i can't vote for people on the street i can't morgan hill do this i move to discuss approve. >> allow staff the opportunity to sort of put your comments into the finding. >> motion to disagree. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. >> (laughter). deputy city attorney mirena burns. i just wanted to come up and say that from the commission is

inclined to disapprove that project a housing project you need to make the vnldz the city can't disapprove the project and even projects that require a cu without making finding in the housing affordability act the commission needs to adopt findings how the project has an verse impact under the law the project has an quoting from state law now significant quantifiable an unavoidable impact by the identified written heath policies or conditions so you will need to base our feelings over heath standards >> so one i'll start with me

may from a public health be heartbreaking for homeless persons over this. >> how about now. >> so i'll add just a question for staff on the historic resources report from the gentleman what is the process of that getting to us i mean who requested that be done. >> that's part of the environmental application okay. >> but is that something we

hired the cultural resources. >> not project sponsor hires the consultant and our historic preservation commission staff reviews the report and either concurs or dangerous with those vbsdz and that's one area there is finding in there you know, i hear the city attorney's comments and i think we can work on finding the staff heard the commissioners discussion about neighborhood character and existing sounds like buildings that single-family homes in the need for that housing stock in the city contextually it resonated in the neighborhood they're also 30ishz that were raised in the cultural report that point out many of the reasons they think that has sounds like structure and transcribes to the neighborhood

i'll encourage you know when developing the findings in the motion to disagree that we head down that path and that can be done in the next week you know before we take up the motion to disagree. >> one question to the architect you said you went down this path of preserving the building and you know their potential options. >> uh-huh. >> that will be dense phil ginsberg the building and adding the unit perhaps. >> right most of organization we looked were not fully flushed out once we started going done that pathway we are heading towards 317 especially, if you talk about the and, of course, those are under possible revision with the horizon and vertical elements and keeping

the foundation in place we can't and - >> did you say is eliminated the foundation but jacked up the house extended to a to the rear it may be a demo project technically it is one i'll encourage a review if not listing the structure you've got those - so, i mean it is one option for us to go down a more continuous than a denial i can go either way. >> if we talk listing the house with changes the character of the building will not be the same as it is ass. >> i disagree i've seen homes list not a 2 story home but can

retain i mean, you, lift that home and retain the significant features of the home and add a unit we've seen that happen throughout the city so, i mean again, it is an option you can look at it would still require to come here under 317 to be a demo but circumstances potentially you're not doing what we're being asked to look at now. >> okay. >> commissioner johnson. >> i think commissioner hillis got there in the sense that the housing affordability act is relatively newer for us we'll have to look at the public health and safeties we'll reference but agree with keeping our motion and then if we have

issues with the finding we'll take that up in the next hearing and even also commissioner hillis on like i said, i'm also for building more housing but feel in a city like san francisco we focus on the opportunities sites first before we go off demolishing lots sounds housing that's why i'm not for the project but i'm for expansions, adu's and anyone else you want to do for the project and things like that. >> commissioners david lindsey department staff i'm picking up on what commissioner hillis and commissioner johnson mentioned about an alternative possible alternative to a denial of the motion - would be to continue it as we did a couple of weeks ago

to allow the project to come up with a project that will be perhaps not technically a demolition but retention of much more building requires continuance probably several weeks would be an alternative. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess a question for the city attorney we see all the time supervisors put in interim controls and having a briefly last week that was ready to expire and heath at a as a state standard but yet controls for lot standards and in co-sponsor are iron heights i'm a typical layperson means someone will be injured physically or they're going to catch a chronic disease he understand the definition is

much broader. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. my understanding i'm not certain that public health and safety is defined it is used in the definition of adverse impact is the commission is required to see the adverse impact and goes on to define the adverse objective identified in the written standard of the public health health and safety standard i don't believe i don't know all the language right now but i would encourage the commission to work with staff often from the commission is going to deny this to work with the staff to define those finding and we can work with staff thank you very much commissioner moore.

>> it will definitely help to meet the challenge you're talking about by staff this building is sounds clearly agents think definition by demolition and dbi i have a hard time figuring out where to use but i'm prepared to be accountability to that requirement and like i said, i found it amazing that staff reports that the building is sound while the words used by the applicant are called substandard two opposite things and dbi has given clear instructions this is substandard this building is not i'd like to have the checklist we've met all the proper requirements that staff is the group fooling us uses it depiction and dot all

the i's and cross the t's to respond to the challenge of by the city attorney so we indeed are clear we're doing the right thing. >> commissioner johnson. >> no. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. could you call the question, please. >> he heard a motion of intent to deny with trying to be further developed by staff with the deputy city attorneys assistance but not a second. >> second. >> then on that motion oh, choose a continuance date 2 weeks out for the intent to deny. >> the motion to deny. >> have time for staff to work with the city attorney for two weeks. >> that's november 17th how about december 1st. >> great. >> okay. very good to

continue commissioner hillis. >> no. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore. >> schematics and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and commissioners that places us on item 14. >> sutter street. >> this is a conditional use authorizati authorization. >> good afternoon department staff the item before you conditional use authorization for a non-retailed service use within the downtown retailer district the project is located on the north waiting west corner between kemper arena and grand the site is developed with a 9

story over basement commercial building with offense spaces an authors 4 through 9 pr the most recent tenants of the basement was low man that closed for business in 2013 the project will convert approximately 12 thousand square feet of retail use on the property the proposal doesn't involve any exterior alterations the department has received 3 letters of support and one letter in opposition as a demands for office use an increase for the ground floor in the- for 4 applications have been filed that is the first to be reviewed by the commission in addition to the standard conditional use authorization findings the christmas must find that the proposed use will not

santa fe track in the few minutes ago as an area for comparison shopper retailing and director consumers - this distinguishes the c district from other c districts the department didn't believe this finding what about made will rove the long-standing place for the use and contrary and inconsistent with several programs and policies within the downtown plan the department has maintenance a policy that strikes a balance between the feed to preserve the financial character the core retail district by maintaining the retail formula on the third floor and below they want to adopt the motion in your packet that owls the project

consistency with the downtown area plan the project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay. thank you. >> project sponsor please. >> 10 minutes. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission and director rahaim i'm jim reuben, junius & rose work with working with the project sponsor and the representatives with here by the way, i've not seen a letter of opposition over the years we've been addressing you a number of impacts relating to the real estate development in san francisco but do recall what is happening to the retail connective that is going as digital commerce replaces the

brick-and-mortar and react to e-commerce businesses and trying to survive the internet is permanently and changed the way that retail is done in the united states in the c-3 the union square at the center of retail shopping their retail uses are on the upper floors with a conditional use authorization as a practical matter of offices have been grandfathering over the years in union square the recommendation i have from the planning department is a reflection of their inspirational policy decisions to remedy the c-3 district on the their story and below we don't believe that the proper decision a one-size-fits-all solution we on the planning code

had it right for you to consider the cu process and as you're aware from the submittal on this case four others matters that had been before you i'm sure you're away the macy's store to be folds by an application to convert upper floors and more so that commission is asked to address the schematic she thought in the retail sector and in the c-3 and a moment for reflection we submit adapting a policy across the board to allow retail use is not a way to address this problem bus 222 sutter our owner has an expensive to figure out what is happening to in union square in our papers a survey of every

building in union square meddled floorings rarltsd are rare and office uses are ubiquitous in union square 22 sutter is one parcel away if kemper arena from the financial district our survey found 7 arraignments out of 47 multi retailers use the third floor no multi retailers in union square that cup a third floor and acknowledge one multi retailers has - to the extents there are rarlsz using 3 floors most of them occupy a third floor they're becoming sx tints think 22 sutter retailed is

challenging a 9 story originally built for a furniture story the floor plates are over 15 feet and there is no pedestrian visible and alterations to the facade to increase the visible are for the possible the building is 3 blocks east and in the opposite of the direction and the - with no success. >> at least 20 retailers have toured the two floors it is questionable whether any retailer will take the third floor the employee costs and insurance is probably not sustainable at that locations as a practical matter 22 sutter is stuck with the first and second floor we note on a retailers that will take a 24irdz floor without the first

and second floor overtime is awaiting to affirm up the first and second floor for retail in 1981 this planning commission authorized the office uses on floors it through 8 office uses continued on floors 4 through 8 in 2003 office uses continued on floors 4 through 8 in 2003 it was a successful low cost apparel retailer that occupied the first, second and third floor until they went into bankruptcy it has been removed since their departure the planning department says is change of use will detract from the few minutes ago from retailing and director consumer services actually we're quite certain

allowing the third floor will be the third floor at sutter will remain vacant, however, allowing the office as the case prior to this company will put people on the third floor in union square will that be a positive for the retailers although 22 sutter's is a number of cases your see that is contrary each case should be based on the merits and the planning commission has it right they're not conducive to retail and contributed to the environment by putting a justification will not reflect the policy but whether a reasonable response to the merits of this case you are to we sentiment retail will not work on the third floor and

return the building from 1981 to negotiation 3 until lo mammals took the building. >> i have 3 minutes left i'm introducing mark a retail specialist to do a report in your packet. >> thank you, thank you commissioners thank you my name is mark a retail consultant and futurist as is relates to the development as mr. ruben point out we have a new technology 200590 wloilz of retail done on line and today almost $4 billion of transactions the two largest apparels wal-mart and amazon not gap or macy's or to death that is amazon millennials all this

is having an impact on brick-and-mortar throughout the union square area you've seen what has happened in the last 5 years an elimination of toys and games where are the toys or us books and music and borders and virgins and tower is gone many of those were department stories misrepresent departments on multi levels stores and categories are gone they're not coming back with the online and local space that is happening next in the sporting goods and electronics we're seeing an accelerating cost of physical refictitious and the regulatory misrepresent space is enforceable and seeing none, inefficiencies the misrepresent

level space that was remembering the aspires populated union square in the 60s and 50s those stores with using europe and lower levels for inventory none carries inventory you cannot walk into a crates and barrel and leave with a piece of furniture back in the old days the europe level was where the vicinity was and the lower levels they sent e sends out the monthly credit statement with the snail mail none of that exists the good news i guess is amazon one of the largest retailers in the world decided to get into the merchandise they're going to open up one thousand stores in 2017 and come to san francisco and they've

announced their stores will be two 3 and 5 hundred square feet one of the largest retailers in the world is interested 3 to 5 hundreds square feet their barley taking the first year we maintain this great union square one of the greatest worlds shopping districts we need it appreciate how the world world is revolving thank you for your time. >> thank you opening up for public comment two cars. >> anastasia and harrison love. >> harrison. >> thank you on behalf of the chinatown i'm here to express your strong support of

disapproval it convert the third from journal to office use we believe the planning department as interpret the planning code and the special use is incomparable with the zoning district and with the downtown plan tell the court is subject and as an actively organization working for 40 plus years to improve the quality of life for the residents in the area we've seen those o how those neighbors are threatened by the improvement of the downtown district this trend is gwen with the tech industry into and around our communities we firmly believe that this pending decision sets a precedent that needs to protect the character the neighborhood so we respectfully urge the commission to support this disapproval for

did you conditional use authorization. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> sue hester i support the staff as well i participated in the process for the downtown plan and after that the chinatown plan there was a lot of planning department planning that went into and thought that went into planning those areas one of the things that you're being asked to do by the project sponsor is to eliminate long term planning just substitute a staff report that comes in on one case per your staff work we

had an hour's worthy of conversation and how we plan the city if we need to plan the c-3 r again maybe we should plan the c-3 r again but within off studies by a developer who has the financial stake is not the way to do it didn't really- that will not evoke confidence in the planning process the staff analysis took you to the plan the language in the plan my office has been at market in an office building since is 1980 and surrounded but wool worth

you should respect the staff work that is being done on this because virtually the staff was thinking throw things at the floor level in the san jose when they did the downtown plan that was done by the planning department wasn't done by me but done by you so instead of he - he really think you should d dispracticing approve and think what is this - one of the things that is dislocated our art uses they've been a category that went into the retail district they're being wiped out of the mission and wiped out of areas and increasing housing districts how do we balance that should we

have art uses in these areas again this needs some thought i would urge i to not accept it's a substitute for planning developers submissions when they have a financial stake it in it thank you very much. >> any other public comment? okay >> i'll start off by actually thank the project sponsor for bringing this up i know it staff is recommending a december approve by i think honestly the compelling information is the tip of the iceberg so where many of the buildings not only in downtown but in great parts of the at the we're faced with closing and shrinking

brick-and-mortar stores restaurants, assuming they making a pretty strong place in the city their experimental you know training is out our restaurants at fisherman's wharf i see this i'm concerned you make me feel old about thinking about department stores we want to roll back to the wool worth days that will not challenge i'm not sure who the futurists and the folks globally where retail is going and hospital r how those buildings are valued whether purchased 10 years ago ms. hester's comment about arts good to put art in the building but won't keep the lights on may be different buildings can take

on office conversion or school conversion and other social niece or uses but i speak about it i think that does trigger i think maybe more work with the planning department on a separate track i know we have a lot of projects going on maybe not just the work of the planning department but the oewd and other agencies and private sectors a person like he eloquently explained the update the retail community in the nation so commissioner moore. >> i'm interested in both sides i think that staff did an excellent job laying out where we are i believe in any reconsidering - approval for the planning department made a eloquent case for how to vision the future and all the areas possibly considerations i do

believe i'll put my trust into the large planning area to how to consider ccr planning and i do take the letter from chinatown communities development rather serious when supervisor yee was o commissioner wu was sitting here we talked about the encroachment of tech office into chinatown on the upper floors that was absolutely haesht to hear we clearly knew we need to support until other areas to enclosure where we are going i'm not sure the store we heard today was not really addressing the retail situation in san francisco as much as it speaks about the national trends but career to

others shopping center suburban retail we're talking about the k of the restructuring the city i think to the commitment - to the city leaking not to individual properties need for reconsideration was the answer i want to give a quick store last year in the gwen of the year all of a sudden lava lounge disappointed that was hard that was a very kind of invigorating outfit on sutter in the same building we are talking about we all regretted it the dissolution between starbuck's and lava lounge they bought lava lounge to make their own best models for interesting for whatever reason lava lounge

served the city with cafes we all embraced that complimented the spirit of city ygs all of a sudden the chairs he missed for the last year and a half they've opened again monday they're back simple furniture excuse me. didn't ask same furniture, same employees and he said to them wow. welcome back they had actually be able to retain employment probably someplace else but back here's ground floor retail and perhaps mr. ruben has something else thank you in full operation the

place was full like a year and a half ago i like the product i was delighted just to tell you some of the things their vacancy they're still people that point to operate in this building and they - i'm at that moment not prepared to change of what the character and the eve in that particular block is mr. ruben if you have any comment. >> it's 22 sutter they're in our building and our landlord is condominium to the land sector brought them back theupping and can't lease laisz that half the knowledge without knowing what will happen on the third floor retailer he'll not get one but can't leave it there is zero

realtors that will take a thirds floor watt having a second and first floor he wants to do the right thing i'm glad you raised that thank you. >> given the discussion by which our process the director i'm glad they're back i'm still not prepared to not support staffs recommendation and just want to say that. >> yeah. >> quick question for the project sponsor is the space demess for office and a letter of intent with a user in place. >> it is not demissed one core

on the one side of the building and one interested i think architecture but not as i understand anything anyone committing and the thirds floor was where hats were. >> what? >> i think that is women's finer as it's hard to talk about everyone saying lo man's. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> yeah. so man, i kind of winner in a different scenario i'd like to have this discussion of where we think especially we think about union square and sort of the areas were meant designates for retailed we have the conversation about philanthropical to change the

codes and this project cyber easily go to the counter and get our permit and you're done unfortunately not the position we're in and i actually have to concur with ms. hester owe agree there were conversations to be had and agree there are certainly some change around this block last week union square. >> don't want to do that here's the reason why it is not just because of a dislike for doing this but part of that area it 2 sutter street is really the edge of union square is the reigning designation which means a lot of things a hub for economic activity or had been for retail activity a different street light it is, it is challenging you are tourism business and a

different shape and form in that area he feel like we need to have the discussion what do we - how do we want this area of town this challenging change in different areas before we start this project as an example we can definitely make a stronger argument that the department store era is over we believe it is true amazon will open locations and timing projecting go walk in and a screen on the wall that is weird but okay that's fine we have to work around that but i think we can have the argument of well is that office? should be it other types of uses above the second floor or, however, we will read

that planning code that is worth it to have that conversation before we start to improve those teaches project i don't know if that means a continuance and calendar talking about the something - but certainly i don't know. i can support this one project today but agree where this is going i'm seeing the trends that the project sponsor is seeing and in the retail report spoken about we talk about the commerce report earlier this year i'm seeing the same trends and high time to talk about where what are we willing to accept. >> i'll quickly agree in a category the department stores with lo man's maybe the larger foot's their urban easy grouping

or clustering as the transition opportunities. >> commissioner melgar. >> dovetailing an commissioner johnson comment i think in principle that is hard just disregard long term planning over i know a permit progressing you don't want to do that and he, of course, see the trends i actually someone that hates shopping i would much rather do online i was in an area and there were thousand of feet of our retail use but people are going to stores and touching things i know a lot of folks if nevada and sacramento a other places to go shopping to the

union square it is a designation i actually went to a location looking for a bamboo you have to buy in candle stick park that there is a way that we can have this confusion of the tremendous changes in retailing to online while still maintaining the long terms plan of having union square be the designation chinatown be the designation without cannibalizing the spaces we have because there are other uses that were encroaching not thoughtful in terms of our long term policy we can do it easement prepared to do this way schematics. >> interesting enough i feel the pain the landlords we had a partner mr. ruben and reuben, junius & rose we're representing

a building around the corner traukz they said that upper floors is not good there is floors 4 through 9 i kind of do a thirds undertook floor so what the signal it sends the absence of a large shift in policy the one or more off approval i'd like to go back and ask the department to see the downtown maybe innovate updated in a long time needs tweaks in 1985 a third floor is beneficial to the neighborhood for businesses i used to shop in the financial district i feel your pain and love to make sure we have a larger xhchgs which this project fits i support staffs recommendation. >> commissioner hillis.

>> a question for staff from the depreciate where this is is the rule that any floor needs a cu to convert to office. >> anything about the ground floor. >> at some point it was grandfathered in. >> non-retail service use needs a conditional use authorization you can approve that in the finding for example, taylor, hair dressers would be fine. >> would be fine, yes. >> this is the first one we've seen my sense non-retail use on floors 4 through 8 is it because they have a cu or grandfathered in. >> interesting enough the downtown plan mentioned the particular building as being within the reasons why the protection on floors above the

ground floor converting to non-retail use why they created the protection they mentioned the building i imagine that was converted before a requirement for a krufb you check the zoning map a furniture up through a certain monument and the business went out out of business in the 80s. >> if you look at this is a similar - towards union square has the similar architecture there are three or four floors of retail but bloefr looks like office i'm curious we vanlts seen more of these in the past

base there's office use in many buildings above the ground floor and the second floor. >> i think that probably much of the office use under speculation not surveyed the areas but speculate that many of the office that is existing was there perhaps some changed to office and didn't get the appropriate permits you know so it is kind of a imagination right now because the pressures on the economy and the growth and needs for office you're seeing a lot of spaces that were in the european floors twarlz you know hair dressers moving out and west and the office use is taking in. >> the place has been there a long time. >> i get the notion but we

have to face retail has been hard on the upper floors we've seen properties turn over or change retails for what was here before retail is harvard you're not lured to the upper floors to go to retail the ones harder hit are the tlairlz you know that's a hard market these days for jewelry repairs and things like that you know at some point we have to face reality. >> it is general office and analyzing that i don't think we can make the findings that say that will support the character of the area there can be a non-retail use that goes into

the space but as long as we analyze that and see. yes, it is activating the student not closed after 5 o'clock at night open on the we understand those are the things about the retail core that the adopt plan was speaking to. >> right. >> okay. >> a question for the project sponsor. >> so the way the building is laid out i have the use of ground floor was that part of lo man's when they existed. >> no. >> so the entire floor plate. >> of the basement. >> when lo man's was there the third floor the elevator or the escalator in the plans to the third floor did lo man's occupy it. >> the thirds floor was office when lo man's took the building

in 2003 and they were a how did retailer they wanted the basement portion of the first, second and 24irdz and put in their escalators. >> the escalator was removed when they left we've that but innovate the problem in getting a retailer. >> right. right i wanted. >> they'll put in an escalator. >> when you say your looking at kind of tenants to occupy the second floor retail taernlts or for non-occupant tenants not requiring a cu what kind of tenants are you looking at did not have operated second floor attendance your may that be marked i mean your plan it

occupy the first floor with occupants and right raise the building representative and leasing agent can talk about what they're experiencing but the building has been available for the balance of the first floor and all the third floor and showed it to 20 retailers i think you prefer me not to give me all the names buttons categories. >> not say ones that didn't want the first floor but the second floor and third floor and we've had 25 tours of the lower ground floor and second floor and third floor we've had zero interest in the whole thing comprise of 40 thousand feet and some interest in the lower

level. >> what type of attendance. >> they chosen to be closer to market street especially, as lo man's went bankrupt. >> what about the rashltsdz retailers that would occupy the first floor. >> zero and nun none >> as opposed a a monday through friday they've offered us more money but the sponsors desire to maintain and work with the union square vibe we wanted to maintain that.

>> thank you was it is worth. >> a question on the flood building it is in c-3 r is that because you know most of floors are occupied their office type of uses on the upper floor of that building is that one, too that requires a cu for non-retail and grandfathered in those upper floors. >> yes. anything about the ground floor above the c-3 r requires a cu. >> i am torn i don't know if we're realistic we will have retail on the third floor or a vacant building i think the code if so you didn't put office use but needs a cu we have other was

from the third floor and in the flood building on every floor impractical above the ground floor it is fairly common to have retail use i don't know that is a big stretch to allow this third floor he guess staffs is saying we'll allow the cus above the third floor but we're drawing the lien at the third floor i don't know if it is i get the logic to go somewhere with this but also can be left you will i up to a cu we look at this in case by case basis that tilts me in the during the time of allowing this to go to it there is a basements of a 35 hundred secret it was used

before as office this third floor there is no precedent the changing nature the retail not in that core the project sponsor mentions you could get that larger format type of union square last week the shoe store or the apple store that adds customers so i think i could get around approving a cu for that given those facts one question i did not see anything from the union square association in that - >> excuse me - he thought you received it their extremely supportive of our location. >> okay you know they're the keepers of

the retail so, i mean i don't have a big issue with allowing the cu to move forward i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> so night i be invited to say something. >> in some ways we're getting what we sought a dialogue question put a lot of materials in the proclamation you'll not see in a straightforward application and spent a lot of money above and beyond what you expect to see my office did a survey from the submittal we surveyed every single building and in the building because we knew we were first and this is coming your way you know there will be a lot of buildings we'll be fine with a continuance rather than losing because it sounds like a dialogue to be had and making more consideration

we'll be happy to participate in and provide resources. >> commissioner moore. >> we want to speak about the pdrs the traditional retail and the is pdrs of traditional retail has been on the upper floors within that part of town when you were once recently or able to buy a suit to be tailored or get our watch fixed or your battery or something accident and i still belielteret miff it is harder and harder to find the services we rely on the community of rail back up pdr is huge when you go into those upper floors and talk with the jewelry that is fixing our watch

and/or replacing the battery people with in and out that have gone there for years others people that are the if you areers the people that make hats they used to have ground floor but the ground floor is taking up by people affording the higher rents that's not as much union square as it is the edges of the streets which make you get more and more existed i move towards grant and post and see the name brands that pull you up traditional san franciscans the brothers and the, etc. they're all gone the only one is good news stricken i believe this carton be resolved a project by project but look at it

particularly director rahaim will remember commissioner president fong will remember we did 300 grant street a few years ago reconditions the remaining retail think is ground floor with housing coming about and this may be a discussion this is far large we're trying to broker here i'm asking want to make a motion for this approval with the caveat we'll continue the conversation but not surrounding this project only but in a much larger form which we have our time to see the pros and cons with the scientific presentation about the shrinking retail how that applies to the city i think the planning department needing discussion is there a second. >> second. >> commissioner vice president

richards. >> i'm done thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you yeah. >> a case by case backed up by policy we've adapted and when i look at you know the c-3 district with residential and uses permitted i think there is a discussion to be had around there around what are we encouraging above the ground floor and the c-3 district i think we had that actual discussion before by the go off assessing one project is okay. and another one is not for that reason