a corner lot, and i went back after many, many years, and i saw castro theaters everywhere. single-family house, castro theater. think of castro theater. it's a big building. there's buildings jammed in, and parking, and literally, it's six buildings across. i saw single-family houses, and castro theaters in with single-family houses. so could we put a ferry building out in the sunset if i wanted to? if i bought up every lot on the block? i want to prove how much money i have, could i buy up the block and bring the ferry building down? >> commissioners, there doesn't appear to be any limit on the city for lot merger limitations, so presumably whatever our underlining zoning restraints are in the city. this bill doesn't seem to

undermine our ability to do that, so if the city -- >> vice president richards: right. we had this with 2819 mission where it was a conditional use, so i could see us getting into a real somebody pulling each other's hairs out. i think that's another issue that i've got is we need to figure out how big we want these buildings to be. i know under the ihpb, we said six lots. i think it was 150 feet, 125. so we've got to figure out an upper limit because we don't want ferry buildings dropping into the middle of what used to be single-family neighborhoods so one of the other things that i came up with was when we had that affordable housing density bonus program, i went back to my stack that was about this tall, and i pulled out those photos in noe valley of houses that were built in 1867, and i

know -- what happens to -- what happens to ceqa-a structures? they're not littsted on the ste register, they're not -- are they fair game for demolition? >> again, sort of a similar answer on the lot merger question. there doesn't seem to be any limitation in the bill on the city enforcing its historic preservation laws, article ten, article 11 or ceqa, for that matter, if there are historic preservation matters under ceqa. >> i'm worried about that. i think we should develop standards around what we can and can't demolish. every time we have 792 cap, people come up and say is it a

historic building or isn't it. that's another concern for me. we don't have impact fees below ten units, do we, for affordable housing? i think that's another item we need to put on our list is somebody's -- we have a lot of nine unit buildings going up everywhere, and there's no value recapture. i think that's going to be an issue. i think the other issue i have is impact density on infrastructure. you know, infrastructure normally lags development, which we may collect a fee on it right now, under certain circumstances, so i think we need to figure out -- we need to get ahead of the issue, because we may be creating a dystopian environment until the future builds out. >> transit oriented development, i read an article about -- these are all just concern points, so if i'm going

on too long, somebody -- >> i see my turn to speak and i'll push here at the end. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson. >> vice president richards: thank you. thamp tham thanks for the glare. >> commissioner johnson: first off, i want to thank the staff for your analysis on something that has a lot of unclear and uncertainty. and also thankful to our community for sharing your concerns and thoughts on this issue. you know, i just -- first off, we're in a housing crisis, and we do need more housing, and in order to get there, we need every community in california to help us address this issue. and at the same time, i am really concerned that this bill facilitates development without bei being proactive to equity. equity isn't something to be

sprinkled on top, it needs to be baked in. i really appreciate the amendments that have been made to protect renters, but we all know what happens in real life. that enforcement falls to the city and nonprofits, and then, even with those protections and even with those efforts, folks fall through the cracks, particularly the most vulnerable, and without the time and resources to mitigate the effects of this bill to make sure we're capturing value, we know that even more will do so. i'm also concerned as has been shared about the impacts on our transit system and the fact that there is always a lag between transportation development and housing. and that coupled with house -- protections for businesses, labor, and other things really need to be baked into this bill from the beginning. so again, i hope that we -- you know, i would have liked to see a more just proactive effort around equity, but i also think

that we have an opportunity to get proactive about our recommendations around this legislation and to really make sure that we are espousing and protecting our most vulnerable in our communities. >> president hillis: thank you. commission commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: i think having this kind of dialogue and great comments like commissioner johnson maybe make us somewhat effective and come back around in a circle. my thoughts on their that one size doesn't fit all. i think we've proven that over and over again. i think that this is a -- a blunt tool for san francisco, and even for the region. i'm not supportive of it as is beyond looking for -- forward to the amendments, i hope this in fact does fail, but i hope that it's a test balloon to get

the attention to the entire region, to the entire state that we need to address housing, and not just in san francisco or l.a. county, but in the counties in between. and i think this is -- the purpose is a message to send to the entire state that we all need to take responsibility when we create jobs in santa clara, that we need to create housing, as well. it's certainly not a nimby piece that i'm trying to portray from san francisco, but i think it's a shared responsibility, the same way we share water in the state, the same way that we share a lot of resources in the state. i think that's the ultimate outcome. i think the sponsoring scott wiener and phil ting have sponsored some great legislation in the past, so i'm looking forward to them installing this and using it to our advantage down the road. my comments have very short,

b -- are really very short, but i didn't think it was a good idea to make these wide swaths in san francisco, and we'll end up paying for it down the road. i also want to make it clear that i'm absolutely for housing, i'm absolutely for height growth in certain parts of the city. i think you can cleverly do this by using areas like on the west side like gary boulevard, irving street, taraval where there's real transit, not just the bus stop to go high, really high, higher than we can imagine, and i'm supportive of that. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner melgar. >> commissioner melgar: thank you. i, too, want to thank the staff and particularly ann marie and joshua for a brilliantly written memo. i think i've gone back and read it several times and found new things every time, so thank you

so much. it was really well done. so i -- you know, i don't -- i'm not going to get into the details of this bill 'cause i think that it's moving. you know, i think people have pointed out some things that were unintended consequences, perhaps not well thought through, and things are going to, i think, be amended, but just sort of on a bird's eye view, i want to say that so i lived in alameda, california, for a few years, a municipality that had for years fought its rena obligations and refused to building multifamily housing. and i think that that, you know, it's definitely a goal that we should have across california, as commissioner johnson pointed out, the desegregatory value of upzoning in value places that were

single-family homes is something that i actually agree with. but where the logic of this falls apart for me is the value recapture mechanism as mr. welch very pointedly put in his comments is really important. that there has to be a direct specific mitigation to pass wrongs, and i just don't see that in this bill. i think that there is a great value that is developed, made for landowners, but there is no specific mitigation for the potential development. and that, i think, doubling down of wrongs, in that we will have a new segregation that creates wealth for some while doing nothing for redistributing that value or the occupancy of that land.

and so i think that, you know, half of this is an idea i can support in terms of increasing density which is still, you know, commissioner richards pointed out, it doesn't even quite do that. i support that. but the other half, the redistributory mechanism is not there at all, and i don't think i can support anything like that until that equity piece, as commissioner johnson very eloquently said needs to be baked right in, not sprinkled on top. thank you. >> president hillis: thank. commissioner koppel? >> thank you. planning oriented development is obviously a bill principle in general. i think scott wiener always has the best intentions and is now writing a statewide bill that is not necessarily ready for san francisco. the comments today here were

overwhelmingly not in support of the language in its current state. kind of reminds me of the sb-35. when it first came out, people thought it was just pollution to housing and affordable housing, yet there was still a lot of opposition. then, over time, some people did say it took too long, but it took time to come to an agreement that was beneficial to all. i do agree with mr. cohen that labor groups are sometimes the last ones included in these talks, and they're made out to be not the best people for inserting their opinions. i'm trying to model this after david chiu's assembly bill which we're thinking about utilizing for the central soma plan, and protections is the word that i kind of wrote down on my notepad in bolded and

italicized. what we do every thursday is look out for the existing san francisco residents, but also workforce protections. the missing middle makes too much money for affordable housing yet is just as susceptible to evictions and displacement as anyone else. i stated before that within the labor community, we're facing up to 20% of our workforce is being displaced from san francisco. and that's not just a one-time displacement. that's 20 is % is on a yearly basis, and so over time, that 20% and that 20% add does up to a lot of people that potentially grew up in this city and sent their kids to school in this city, only to have to leave this city and come back to work in this city. i'd like to see a chance for san francisco contractors that employ san francisco residents

to make this beneficial for san francisco as much as we can. mr. cohen also had an article in the paper today that mentioned a term called the jobs-housing fit, and so it's not just about jobs-housing balance, but how are those jobs in the conversation? are people building the housing able to live in the housing? again, ab-73 is a good example, where they provides protections in skill force. it's going to strengthen the residents that are trying to li live here in this city and stay here in this city. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: thank you, josh. thank you ann marie. this is the best of planning that san francisco can do, and this legislation in my opinion

is the antithesis to planning. i think if we all -- [ inaudible ] -- where had the leadership in doing all the kinds of things that this particular bill seems to be denying. i'm really appreciative about insight that the public is bringing to this discussion. i think everything that is said at least for those that are critical of this bill is what resonates with me. and i have to say that what the opposing party says does not resonate with me at all because i find it disrespectful and ignoring the real true nature of the city. what is really amazing to me, it is a dictatorial, and trump like. i do believe it is a reversal of power to the state, and in a

certain way, i do not understand how a former supervisor who is a senator now can be so unappreciative and so nonunderstanding of the true dynamics of what this city can do as an example for us. i think as we are leading the regional discussion for change, the regional discussion for housing equity and distribution, this bill is basically a blunt tool to force something which will not happen except for those communities who have a minimum infrastructure and transportation. i think san francisco leading it in its most fine grained nature, los angeles by its larger distance leading it in the boulder stroke, but in no community will it be basically cheefg what is intended for this bill. the scariest part for me is in its unspecific nondescribing

deadlines for implementation, it is basically, as mr. welch eloquently said only a bill for speculating and trading real estate values. there is nothing do it by which we're really addressing to actively solving the housing crisis. we're kicking it down the -- kicking it down the alley like something that is a good idea, except looking for its proper -- proper implementation mechanisms. i agree with what my fellow commissioners are saying, that without protection for those who live here, it's without protection for those who work here, renters, labor, low income people, people of color. it is basically a one size fits all, which is in its essence, for me, a sweat tool, feel

uncomfortable to live here. >> president hillis: is that it, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: yeah. i want to use a word, but i bit my tongue, and i didn't use it. >> president hillis: i think we are in a housing crisis, not just in san francisco, regionally, staytewide. i actually applaud senator scott wiener for taking this on. i'm sure he's not a fan of many planning commissions around the state, whether it be us or cupertino or san jose or fresno, but i think he's got the broad interest of california in mind. we need more housing. i moved here 25 years ago. i was able here on a decent e city salary to live here. i don't think it would be done today. we often explain about cupertino or brisbane not doing

their part. i think we have to realize that this bill does not just apply to san francisco, it applies to the region. i actually thought this map was telling, but i think supervisor peskin had, and others, shown, you know, it should be more on the peninsula that housing should be allowed, and i think we should even go beyond san francisco and make recommendations on how this could go just beyond this transit definition so that other areas in the peninsula and elsewhere around the region get upzoned and, you know, allow for more housing density. i think the way it's crafted now, it does put too much of the weight incentives in places that are fairly dense already and have transit, and the reason they have transit is because they're fairly dense. i think we can all shout this

bill down and say it's not great, saying swe should zone the entire richmond and sunset to be ten stories. i think that's not correct. i think we do owe it to future generations to build more housing in san francisco and in the region, and it just isn't being done. it's expensive to live here, and people want to move to california, we're not going to stop them from moving to california. we should encourage that, so, i mean, i think some of the specific comments on the zoning are -- we should dig into them, and i'd love to have a hearing as this gets modified, which it will, we take specific recommendations. i think the value recapture that's come up again and again is important. we've -- we've done things right in san francisco, and we

should encourage the region to do those right things. but we also have to look and say some of the things -- we haven't done perfectly. we've done good neighborhood planning, but that doesn't always result in an easy path to build new housing. we passed adu housing, which the senator wiener was instrumental in helping that. home sf was mentioned a lot here. we've yet to see one project come forward from project sf. my take, it's not doable. we won't see anything from home sf unless we force a developer to do it. i've heard from many that are trying to build and would like to build that it doesn't necessarily work. i think we can do better, but i think we can use this to encourage the region to do

better, also, and the state to do better. we need strong tenant protection. i'm not sure -- is the language -- you said this bill was amended so that rent control units -- existing rent control units are protected -- the city's allowed to protect them or they're protected in. >> so the amendments state that any unit that is subject to rent control, that you cannot use -- that you don't get a bonus. you don't get a bonus under sb-827 if there is any existing rent control unit on that parcel. it then says if a city wants to decide to set a policy or replacing -- like, for allowing the demolition and replacement of those units, it's on the city to proactively pass a resolution deciding how to do that. >> president hillis: so our existing rules for cu for

demoing an existing residential building would still apply. >> correct. >> president hillis: so i'm not coming and demolishing georgia shootis' home-without building another unit on that block. >> if that unit had a rent control unit, you wouldn't be able to use 827 unless the board of superviso board of supervisors agreed to pass a resolution agreement. >> president hillis: i think the transit notion is a good idea, but that's where i think it doesn't necessarily work regional -- in the region because we're great. we've got a good transit infrastructure, so it kind of takes on all the rh-1 here, but if you look down the peninsula, most of those are zoned the same as the richmond and the sunset, but they're not impacted because they're not close to a bus line, and i think there's got to be some equity in that, that those

areas should share in that density increa increase. something to kind of avoid what commissioner riches w commissioner richards was talking about as a single-family unit going to a multiunit. some -- some distinction between that. i mean, i agree, this is blunt. it kind of has to be when you've got different jurisdictions with very different levels of what -- how housing is built, but there's got to be some recognition that municipalities and localities aren't building to the extent that they should be building. commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: okay. so playing on what commissioner hillis just said, if i were scott wiener, what i would do,

all these -- we're like the good kids in school that are getting punished for what the bad kids do. what i would do is punish the bad kids and incentivize the kids that are being good to be better. i would do a carrot and a stick. right now, they don't have anything. sure, el camino's going to be up zoned. big deal, whereas the rest of the thing is going to be empty. use something to get them to do what they're supposed to do. right now, they're not gooding to do anythigooding -- going to do anything. back to what commissioner hillis says.

sb-827 would reduce interest in local affordablity incentive programs but may create more affordable housing overall. i call bs. why? this was a ucla anderson forecast from the fall. i think you guys had to have heard about this. the increased density in california cities will increase the density. density makes housing more expensetive than they might be, but will it make them more expensive in absolutely terms. let's consider the employment situation. this is the basis for the demand for housing, period. let's face it. we keep adding workers, we've got to add more homes. then, we go to page -- i've spent a lot of time last night on this. if one examines density in housing in cities across the u.s. for communities less than

50,000, it is clear there is no relation between actual density of housing and the affordability of the city, but density is only part of the city. certainly more supply means lower housing prices. that's what this is all about, but how much lower? if the answer is 1%, then most would agree that not much has been accomplished. looking back to the last three years of where housing used to be, 2014, this was an 18.4% jump, this would be something different, and it go oz to tell exactly what it is going to take to do that. at least part of the reason why california housing is expensive from bakersfield, fresno, san francisco, san diego, it's higher because people pay a premium to live here. it's attributable to the amenities that californians enjoy. so if you start making life miserable, you're going to tamp the amenities down, i think.

it's going to be kind of a bad place to live thaif you can't around. but then, the kicker comes here, two paragraphs later. using the california legislative l.a. on, this is the infamous l.a.o. report, pima tracted by the california lifestyle and more affordable housing, we find that to obtain a modest 10% reduction in price requires 20% more housing. san francisco has 360,000 units give or take a few thousand. that's 76,000 units for a 10% reduction in price. let's start getting our minds wrapped around this when we start looking at the magnitudes we need to create and where to create it. this is huge. this is like the punch between the eyes.

for altogether the intent and tand -- all the intent and good of this legislation, we've got to do 76,000 units. it's going to be -- you got to remember, a person making 50,000, 70,000 a year, can't afford a half million or $750,000 house. that's how much they cost to build, right? achieving anything close to this by the end of 2019, which is the forecast horizon is pie in the sky. indeed, even in the ten year building program of 7200 units a year which would be what we would need to do, affordable homes would be a challenge. that infrastructure will need to be funded at least in the near term with new taxes. so where's all the infrastructure going to come

from? it's all here in the anderson report. i suggest people take a look at it. oh, the big winner in this is going to be the construction industry. that's fantastic, but we already have a shortage of construction workers. we're not building housing because we have too few workers trying to bid on too many projects. what's this going to do to prices? do we need to import workers to build these buildings? how are we going to build them? come on, i can't have somebody come out and give me a quote for under $20,000 to put a doorknob on, there's so much work in this city. i hear they're importing workers from other cities to get work done. it's expensive. half mile zoning around a major transit, why half mile? when we did the plan areas, is it was a quarter mile, so i can see granny having to walk a half mile to get to the bus if she's living out in one of these new units, i think we

need to look at that. what about terrain? what if it's a half mile up a hill to and half mile down. i think 15 minutes every two hours, peak times, is not enough. we've got to look at the whole day, obviously, but what if the on timeness never gets reached. what if in the morning, it comes every 15 minutes, but i can't get on because there's no room. these are the things we need to start thinking about because we're going to be creating a dystopia. i think there's great intention here, but i think that there also needs to be some things that go with it. one other thing, filtering. so now we've established it's going to take a human amount of supply so just reduce prices 10%. we go back to 2014 level. uc berkeley igs brief.

filtering is not enough, so if we build houses over time, they're going to become more affordable because they become rundown and older and people don't like them, well, the turnover rate generally will be about .2% a year, so in so many years, you'll -- people will be able to find affordability here. they conclude the filtering process can take generations, meaning the units may not filter at a rate that meets the market's peak. so add it all up, i think this is not a silver bullet. i think that -- i know rodney, i'm on a roll. >> president hillis: you are. >> vice president richards: i'm on a roll. here's my punch line. this in and of itself needs to be a part of a grander bargain. to throw this mixibig thing up then have us shoot holes in it,

it starts a conversation, and that's a lot of things that need to be melted on, but we need to stablize vulnerable communities, we need a more -- moratorium on affordable housing. we also need prop 13 review. we need to figure out how we can actually harness the taxes that we should be collecting to build the infrastructure and not relying on the taxes. so in the city, we need to have demolition controls, or proceed hibition. if costa hawkins repeal, we need to have single-family rent control. >> president hillis: just a quick question. we used the bay land as an example on why there isn't housi housing built on that site which seems like a logical site

from many standpoint to have housing built, and i know brings bane is going back and forth. would this bill apply to that or because it's zoned commercial, it wopt? >>. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: i think that's another recommendation where this could go, where you have under utilized commercial plazs wi plazas with the toys r us's that are now out of business. it would be good when you're looking at this again to look at commercial property, too, and under utilized commercial property that tend to be close to transit, that could be used for housing. so thank you. i think -- anybody else? no. thank you for the -- thank you, staff, for the great work and

i don't know street blic

commercial district. before i begin my presentation, i'd like to provide ellie hall of supervisor stefani's to present to you. >> i just wanted to thank you for hearing this ordinance today. the legislation that allows massage establishments on union street to be conditionally permitted, currently they are entirely prohibited. we propose a path to legalization to permit the establishment of small businesses and support our local economy. >> all right. thank you. i -- commissioners, the department supports the ordinance in light of the current retail sector trends

because it's another retail -- excuse me, restale experience based use type that would be allowed to locate in union street ncd. as epgs mmentioned, we do have couple of amendments. -- [ inaudible ] >> -- within the union street ncd or neighborhood commercial district may avail themselves of this legalization program. this concludes my presentation. i'm here available for questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, mr. sanchez. any public comment on this item? great. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: could you give us an idea of how many you are expected to legalize? >> diego sanchez. we understand from discussions with the department of public

health that it's about three. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> president hillis: all right. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i don't see any problem because i think this is properly vetted, and i just move to approve with modifications as read into the record. >> second. >> clerk: commissioners there is a motion to approve and a second with modifications. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 6-0. that places you on item 13 d-a and b, records number 2017-0411 cua and record number 2017-011465 ofa at 945 market street, a conditional use authorization and an office

development authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. claudi claudine asbaugh, planning department staff. the project is located on the south side of market street between 5th and 6th streets and stradles the down general zoning district. it was approved by planning commission on july 8, 2010, and construction was completed on march 27, 2017. this is a six by six project. the project would convert approximately 47,522 square feet of vacant retail space on the fourth and fifth floors to general office use. retail sales and service uses would remain at basement levels through the third floor.

the project requires a conditional use authorization in addition to an office allocation. the proposal does not involve any exterior alterations to the building. this is the third request to convert retail to general office street within the c-3-r district before this commission. commission staff worked with oewd to further study the vacancy rate and mix of uses at the second and third stories. the department is supportive of this particular project for a number of reasons include it is in line with the general policy under which we've been evaluating these projects. while the conversion creates a large office floor plate, the location of the office located within the c-3-r is quite small. the building has been vacant since construction, and the creation of office at the

fourth and fifth floors will provide a good mix of uses within the building and could help support future retail both within the building as well as in the general project vicinity. the establishment of office will not displace any re-taylor other principally permitted uses. the entirety of the office represented an allocation of approximately 4.7% of the small cap office space currently available for allocation. to date, the department has received one letter of support for the project. just want to let you know that earl aeer this week, supervisor peskin has introduced interim lelgs lation for a moratorium for office conversions within the c-3-r, and i imagine the department will work with him to develop regulations. the project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation, and i'll be available for questions. >> president hillis: all right.

thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan franton with ruben junius and rose. all right. so i think some of you are actually pretty familiar with this property both from going by it day-to-day and others probably participated in the approval hearings about eight years ago, but as a refresher for you and some of the newer commissioners, the building was approved under prior ownership as a five story plus basement retail center. it's about 350,000 square feet. the marketing at the time was focused on national discount retailers, target, nordstrom rock, off fifth and toys r us

were identified as potential tenants. as you know toys r us went belly-up and nordstrom rack, target all opted for existing retail spaces instead of committing to a site where construction hadn't even started yet. other tenants were simile reluctant to commit, and the current owner actually acquired the property out of foreclosure in 2012 and finished construction about this time last year. they've been actively marketing the property since then, though there are a few prospective tenants, a variety of -- [ inaudible ] >> first, there is the amazon effect. many larger companies that would have taken large floor plate retail are closing stores or down sizing due to on-line

competition. and some analysts predict that shopping malls in the country could close by 2022, so it's not exactly a pretty picture for retail nationally. fortunately it is a bit better in san francisco and union square, but retailers are looking for smaller spaces, and they're less attracted to upper floor spaces, particularly large upper floor spaces than they were before. next -- and this is a topic that you've heard about lately in the housing context. retailers who look at the space are experiencing sticker shock at the construction costs. they're at least 60% higher of what they're encountering when they do build outs in other markets, and this is a bigger factor for this building than others simply because it's a new building, so all of the tenant spaces are in shell condition. the combination of these two factors really put a damper on laezing of the large floor

plates, particularly here where we're at the outer edge of the city's retail district. with that said, the ownership is far along in lease negotiations for the entire basement level along with a portion of the first floor. they're also close to a deal with a potential tentant on the fifth floor and was particularly attractive to this tent a tenant for the kind of use they're proposing, which unfortunately i'm not at liberty to discuss the specifics with you this afternoon. again, the whole building is in shell condition right now with the exception of a central atrium which is where the escalator is going up to where all the floors are. the -- the office proposal actually represents a little bit shy of 18% of the building's square footage

exclusive of parking. we'd initially proposed to split that up between the third and fourth floors when we filed this application; however, based on the policy proposal that you considered a few weeks ago, planning staff asked that we move the office space to the fourth floor and above. that request actually dove tailed nicely with some discussions that we were having with the fifth floor retail tenant, which is interested in some office space for its own use, as well as a coworking and event space at the fourth floor. and that is exactly the kind of office space that this owner wants for this building, is something that is active and open, not a traditional office, so coworking with maybe with some retail interface or an event space attached, an office that wanted demoor showroom space to interact or to interface directly with customers is another. and we've actually had interest

from a variety of tenants along those lines. so we're on board with planning's recommendation for 47,000 square feet of office. we'd like to be able to flexibly configure that as both the fourth and fifth floors, depending on the outcome of discussions with tenants. i know that there's been a good deal of discussion over the last year, and it sounds like there's going to be more very soon about -- about office in the c-3-r district and conversion to office in the kr-3-r district, but what is proposed here is a conversion really only in the most technical sense. this is vacant space. it's never been used as retail. it's at the very edge of the c-3-r district. you can see that only about a third of the floor plate is in the retail district. the rest is in the downtown general district where you can do office by right at the

second floor and up. lastly, you don't really need to look very far to see successful examples of retail developments that have integrated office. 901 market is just a couple doors over. they have three floors of office above two floors of retail. then, further down at west field center, you have a very successful mix of office, retail coworking and event space, so to put a fine point on it, the request is really to put this building on equal footing with its competitors that are just down the block. this is going to help us fill out the building and activate 270 feet of frontage on market street that's been vacant for several years. with that, i'll close, and i'm of course available for any questions you might have. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. is there any couple comment on

this item? i have one speaker, lee, but if there's others, please come forward. go ahead. >> hi. i'm lee, and i'm a ucsf student. i live next door, and i've been walking in and out for, like, five years, and it's still empty. it's kind of scary, and you know, with huge rooms and huge elevators and sometimes i felt like it's kind of dangerous if somebody hides ipz be, like, with -- inside, like, with a gun or something. i'm neutral on this. i just want to see that it's filled as quickly as possible, so i hope it can economically be reached. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i don't remember what was there previously. maybe miss hester can tell us

what was there. it's sad story that we're losing this retail space that people go to and congregate for various reasons. it says 13% out in the richmond are vacant storefronts, so i think it's just -- it's just the way it is. there's not going to be any retail, so i guess the question that i have is the remaining space there below the small office' ca cap, how long are y going to let it sit empty? i would make a suggestion that there be a time limit on that and some other use be put in. i'm not saying office space, but when i looked at that basement part, i thought about midmarket. i thought could that be adapted to provide, say, something like a navigation center for midmarket? you could wall off the -- from the upper level and create a space for people to go down stairs or in the first level or

do something to create some kind of social service space there, rather than having it sit empty retail. i think that anybody who's been at midmarket lately knows that it would be -- that something needs to be there to help people who are there coming off to market street from around the city. so that's from the richmond review and that's my suggestion. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. miss hester. >> sue hester. at 870 market, the flood building. this is the second project within a block and a half of my office. i was here on 56 mason two weeks ago, and i approved it. the buildings and the block -- the 900 block of market street was full of nonprofits on the south side of the street as

well as the north side of the street. because the planning department had a vision of market being turned over to the tech industry, there was a lot of change that happened on there. i don't have any objection to this being changed to office above, because it'll be hypocritical because my office is above retail in the flood building, but i do have a couple concerns. one is that all the building permits for the build out be explicitly routed to the planning department. there's a lot of gamesmanship that happens in the city between projects that do permits that only go to the building department, and this one, everything needs to go to the planning department to make sure that it will what was told you by developer in 2010 is

followed in 2018. we can't go back and unerase the history of this building, but it was a long stretch between the planning commission hearing and this hearing when it was approved. and it's one of the reasons i think you should require a three year requirement to come back to the planning commission on everything, not some of the things. three years doesn't happen because they have to put it on the agenda. so(a), building out everything goes to the planning department for approval. future reference, no approves without a three-year come back condition on the project because there's a lot of speculation on permits, and i

think you all know it. really, you should know it because you're a planning commission. even a new planning commissioner should know how much this is done. so -- and i think georgia's recommendation of look seriously -- if the first floor of it becomes totally vacant, it has to come back to the commission, so there should be a report back on how the first floor is being rented out and put the hearing a year from now at the most. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner moore? >> i have a couple of questions for mr. franton. you're speaking of 47,000 square feet of office, that provides office space for

roughly 240 office people. using tighter office standards, will they be partaking in using parking on the two lower levels of the building? >> it's a public parking lot on the lower levels of the building, so it's available to the general public, but there will not be dedicated parking if that is the question. >> commissioner moore: that is the question, yes. thank you. that's -- i appreciate that answer. i'm not finished yet, thank you. if you don't mind. >> pardon me. >> commissioner moore: the floor plans are just a corn shell of how this building is designed as a retail space. for office, you need a little bit more infrastruck tuck such as rest rooms, break rooms, artwork, etcetera. where are they to occur, because i don't see any provision even in these st schematics of where these things would be.

>> there just aren't any tenants that have signed leases for the building, and there are a number of moving parts that we're working with right now in terms of signing both retail leases and hopefully in the near term office leases, and so the location of that infrastructure would be defined when we have tenants who actually present tenant improvement plans. and to miss hester's point, and perhaps also to yours, if i can direct your attention to the cu approval motion at page 14, item number seven, there's a specific provision that's written in here for the tenant improvement permits to be reviewed by the planning department to confirm that the square footage and other aspects of the approval are being addressed as we've

introduced them here today. >> commissioner moore: i'm just talking about improvements, because once you approve rest rooms in a building, they're at a erin is location in the building, a certain distance from the exits. it's not like a one level thing, they basically come in shaft through the entire building, so you're starting to ultaer the buildi alter the building. i think someone may want to look at in terms of specificity in the long run, if that building were to revert back to something else, somebody should have a vision of how best to accommodate that. i'm sure you'll be talking to the fire department because there are certain realities when you have a change of use in a building that's strictly designed for large floor plate retail. i'm just asking that -- that the department itself help you answer those questions before you basically venture into

something which may not exactly be what you want to ultimately have leased. i find otherwise the interim use as an office quite acceptable. i wish the building would have been a little bit more designed for that kind of future flexiblity already, but it is what it is, and i think as it refrains itself to the use of a limited amount of space on the upper floors, i do not have any problems with that. i wish, actually, that those retail components which are still strategically located would already be leased out, so that this building has a new building on market street starts to set the tone by which it was invented and put there in the first place, and we're lagging a number of years now for that to happen. thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner fong? [please stand by for captioner switch]