san francisco. i went to performances at fillmore west. i think the importance it needs to be preserved, 4 million people attended performances there. it was comparable to the apollo and the savoy theater. now with regard to the draft e.i.r., although i'm agreeing with the superior alternatives, i think the text and the body is lacking in recognition of the historical and cultural significance. i notice that there were only three pages referencing that when in fact as part of the ceqa process, there's this great report prepared by swca. i don't know why it was so abbreviated. i understand the document's already 700 pages long, but you know what? we know there's going to be traffic. what we don't know is the history of the project. now, i'd also like to point out

what's real important about this building and the history, and that is it's san francisco centric. this is real important. who played is there in wel-- t? well, jerry garcia. the dead. carlos santana. i attended washington high school, and about ten years before i graduated, mary bowen attended washington high school. he founded the jefferson airplane. there's a very strong and significant local san francisco part that i don't think is captured in the draft e.i.r. also, what's not captured is the number of live performances that were recorded and records sold. so i brought the aretha album. i don't know why the technology

is not working so i can project it. there it is. there's aretha at fillmore west. okay. then, performing with her, that's ray charles, okay? this is what was going on in san francisco. fillmore west in particular encouraged many of the african american musicians at that time who were denied exposure -- >> clerk: thank you, mr. mansbach. your time is up. >> but how about aretha? you can't cutoff aretha? >> clerk: you're no aretha. >> president hillis: thank you, and you can certainly supplement your comments here with written comments to the draft e.i.r. on behalf of aretha. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jordan langer. i am the president of nonplus ultra. thank you for your time and i appreciate you hearing this in front of you today. in 2017, crescent heights approached us to talk about a viable way to preserve the cultural importance of 10 south vanness. in their plans, we talked about bringing in some place making, some really, really fun events, and on top of that, opening up the space to the public to let them see what the space once was. in the past couple of months, we've done a number of events. we've done, as joe said, a large gay pride event, a number of community fundraisers, and one that was really quite fun. we had over is,01,000 people c to a kids carnival on one of

the smokeyest, worst air quality days that california has ever seen. over the years, the space has been an automotive care center. i brought a few photos so you could see what n.p.u. took it over. this is how we found the space on day one of us taking it over. as you can see, the walls are filled with dirt, grime, and grease. the floors are covers in oil, and the space is in a complete state of disrepair. as can you see from this -- as you can see from this picture here, in this corner, the entirety of the main ballroom space was either backed into repeatedly over the course of the 40 years they were there, holes were punched in the walls, and there was a complete lack of respect for what the building actually was. what you can see here is the

historic dance floor in the ballroom that was actually the basketball court was actually taken off and sold for people as kind of memorabilia for the space. i've personally owned over a dozen music venue locations in san francisco, and i think there is a strong feeling to preserve the cultural importance of this building than keeping it as is. the spirit of the fillmore west is alive, and that is what is important. through the work with crescent heights and n.p.u., we are excited to be able to bring that spirit back in the long-term development through place making, through a great mix of tenants and through a large event space in the building. the building as it sits today is not the fillmore west. the spirit is what is important, and i as a san franciscan and crescent heights as a developer are committed to bring that back to the space.

thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition on behalf of the project. i want to apologize. it took us so long to get your report card to you. i know this is an e-i-r. we're talking about 950 total homes. this is really signature. this is a massive project, but in the scope of the e.i.r. itself, this fits into the what the city has been doing at the hub for a really long time. we started to see the dominos fall -- it's funny, i was talking to a friend on the way over here, and mentioned the building that jim lives in, jim haas.

so from a big picture standpoint, the fact that the city has taken this area, they understand what is capable, they understand -- we understand it is a transit hub, and for the residents on -- on the west side of the city, it kind of, you know, naturally marks what becomes downtown san francisco. so the idea that this is one of the many pieces that fit into our vision for the future is really exciting. i'm not by any means a music historian, but just listening to the last couple of speakers talk, we totally understand that there was something significant that happened at the fillmore west for a long period of time and really does represent a lot of things that we value about san francisco. and for the life of me, i just don't -- i don't understand why the current version of that best represents what we all envision of that spirit of san francisco. that doesn't make any sense. and i ask the teams, do you know what you're going to do with this long-term? they're trying to figure it on

out. but i know that they're dedicated to ensuring that it does carrie on and -- carry on in the new project going forward. it's such a cool piece of history. whatever they want to do, we are confident that it's going to be respectful, going to be tasteful, hopefully going to be significant. so when people that were there 30, 40, 50 years ago and saw the music come out of the walls, they light up, and they can hear it all over again, and they can repair what it was like, and the spirit of the building and the spirit of the fillmore west and the sfrirt of san francisco can live on. and at the same time, we have the opportunity to provide transit oriented development on top of a muni stations so i and future generations can enjoy san francisco and listen to the music, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional comment on the draft e.i.r.? hearing none, we'll close public comment.

commissioners, any comments to submit on the draft e.i.r.? >> commissioner koppel: just one comment. i was the one no vote solely due to the extra parking, and really appreciate the willingness of the developer to look at the two i.t.'s at this intersection and the vision zero that we have adopted here in san francisco, so looking forward to hearing more of the great potential for this iconic intersection. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think the e.i.r. as setup is brought and thorough. the one thing i would like to ask, and i've asked this before, it is thin in the area of explaining the historic background of the building. i think there's an explanation, including visual depictions

necessary. not everybody has access to the historic ceqa document that was meengse mentioned, so i believe this ceqa has to have a background somebody to everybody to read and see. the other thing which is of concern to me, although mr. aprogram stated this began a creation of the hub plan, i believe this project is concurrent with all other major projects that have been approved in the hub, the future building of the planning department and d.b.i. on the one side, the good street project and other projects such as the demolition of the union hall and other projects surrounding that needs to address a larger context. i do not believe we can afford having a robust plan for the hub that this building, which

we knew would disappear when we started talking about the hub, except we never knew this project was already happening, each answers some very -- needs answered some very important questions, the harmonious massing of buildings with each other, the treatments of driveways and sidewalks. i think they spoke of moving people to a very difficult intersection in a more harmonious way, given what we' we're adding to the heart of downtown. so i believe this e.i.r. would be well served to spend a few more chapters into the issue of pedestrian circulation, including how this new building will interact with a major commitment to a more public park at the corner of oak, vanness, and market streets. that is the one oak project, where we spent quite a bit of

time. the usual concerns about height, wind, sun light, and shadow are common. it was a little bit perfunctory to comment on what the building will address. i would have liked to have seen a little bit more treatment of those issues in detail than what's in front of me here, so those are my comments. it's -- i would give it positive support except it needs a little bit more work w. i am a little bit concerned, but perhaps that is not part of today's discussion, that's an investigation into the two-tower emergency, one tower scheme fell between two architectural firms, one being a local one, and the other being an out of town firm is a

little concerning to me particularly because e.i.r.s are what is happening in california and not in other states in the union, which makes me wonder if there have been particular attentions to design responsibility particularly when you are an out of town architect. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, commissioner moore. so the public comment period closes next tuesday, the 11th? well, we'll close this hearing, but you can submit comments until the 11th. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that'll place us on item nine. [agenda item read] >> clerk: please note that this conditional public use was heard on november 15, 2018. on november 15, it was continued without hearing to december 6 by a vote of 6-0.

>> krarch, commissioners, chris may, planning department staff. at the september 13, 2018 hearing, the commission reconsidered a request for conditional use authorization inform demolish the existing two story single-family dwelling and to construct a new four-story, three-unit building at the project site at 137 clayton street. given recent amendments to the housing accountability act which restrict the ability of local agencies to vel housing projects -- [inaudible] >> -- which would preclude the addition of a parking garage and permitting horizontal and vertical additions to allow for three family sized dwelling units on the site. the project sponsor has provided schematic floor plans

for a theoretical project that would meet the requirements of the modified project as described in the draft motion of approval. they have also included a cost estimate provided by a licensed contractor which estimates the total cost of such a project at approximately $1278 a square foot. planning staff have reviewed these cost estimates as the project sponsor alleges that the recommended conditions of approval in the draft motion effectively render the project infeasible. the appraised cost is slightly lower than recently sales in the nopa neighborhood which average around $1,000 per

square foot, although these units included parking. this estimate -- this amount ranges from about $177 to $241 per square foot. however, it should be noted that it is unclear whether this range factors in some of the soft costs and other factors that were included in the project sponsor's cost estimate. in order to perform a thorough feasibility analysis, it would be necessary to have an apples to apples comparison. the additional end analysis would compare the cost savings for not retaining the front facade, and the appraised value

of adding three parking spaces, which is the only material difference between the two projects. commissioners, no changes have been made to the project which continues to propose the full demolition of the building in order to allow for a new four story, three unit building with a three car adjacent garage. since the publication of the report, planning staff has received one letter in opposition of the project. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor. we've heard this a couple times before. so we've got a five-minute project presentation and then two minutes of public comment. >> good afternoon, president hillis and commissioners. ryan patterson on behalf of the project sponsor. thank you for your time hearing this today. thank you last hearing, you directed the project sponsor to

go back and evaluate and find a way to retain the facade and eliminate the parking from the project. we tried to do that. we had a certified appraiser appraise the value of the project. you have the reports and i've just passed out hard copies so you have them in front of you, mr. kearny's here to answer any questions about the report. unfortunately, the project that you're suggesting does not pencil out. it will cost approximately $5.1 billion to build, and it will be worth approximately $3.3 million once it's built. there's only a $1.3 million differential between what's there now and the project that you're suggesting be built. there's no way that that project can pencil out, and the

owner cannot and will not be able to build that if you impose those conditions. the housing accountability act requires the housing development project not be denied or conditioned in a measure that renders them unfeasible to build. under smt h-1 feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors. based on the prior motion to deny for neighborhood character impacts, which is illegal, and the draft motion to deny based on, i would say bogus health and safety impacts, i would ask the court for a finding of bad faith denial, which brings a h-x multiplier of fines and additional procedural

penalties. commissioners, with all due respect, maintaining the facade drives up the price of building this project, and removing the parking removes the rest of the funding that allows this project to pencil out. the law requires that this be approved. i do hope that you'll approve it so that we can add housing to san francisco's housing stock. we're proposing to remove a single-family resident and replace it with three units. oh, and you also have, in the pactets that you gave -- packets that i gave you, utility bills that show absolutely no water use aj. the property is vacant, has been vacant for some time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kevin kearny. i have been a general

contractor in the state of california since 1980. before that, i was a general contractor in the state of maryland for five years before i moved here and went to graduate school. i have owned a company and done $22 million of this type of company in this city since 1980, and for the last 30 years have acted as a construction expert in all phases of construction. i've been qualified as an expert in cost analysis and any phase of construction over 350 times and 48 times in california and san francisco superior court and arbitrations. i estimated this project based on the plans i had, a walk-through i did, and my knowledge of current construction costs. i can elaborate on what's driving up the costs of construction if it's of interest to you. it's my belief that it will not go down any time soon, if ever, and i believe my type of analysis was correct for this

type of housing. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. [inaudible] >> so the d.b.i. construction costs were always 80% to 90% lower than the actual cost of doing construction because it's based -- i'm not even sure how those costs are determined. it was based on determining permits -- in residential construction, no one ever minded. i know that in commercial construction, the city often corrects low estimates by contractors and architects. >> president hillis: okay. thank you very much. we're going to open this item up for public comment. i have no speaker cards. mr. smith. >> hello, commissioners, again, cory smith. i am just speaking as an

individual on this project. i've got no real details on this, but any time the housing accountability act comes up, my ears perk up and just making sure we are doing everything we're supposed to be doing in accordance with state law. i know that commissioner melgar said at a previous hearing she would be interested to know how that applies as it exists. just as a resident, generally speaking, if the city can do everything in its power to avoid getting sued, i'm a fan of that. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment -- oh, you -- all right. you can come up to the mic.

>> i was going to say i actually wrote three letters opposing the project. they came in after the deadline for your agenda packet. i have copies of them if you'd like to see them. >> president hillis: sure. you can leave them right there. now's your time to talk about them, if you'd like. >> so i spoke at the last meeting. i live across the street from the proposed project, and it's what has me interested in it. i was coming in before on what really an architecturally gem it is on something that's going to be torn down, and not keeping with the neighborhood. today, i had written three letters. the first one is i think that the building has an

unauthorized dwelling unit in it which was not filed under the affidavit and so the first letter, it talks about that. [inaudible] >> a couple pictures here. this is the alleyway down the left side of the building, which is open to the street. leads to an area with a nice little doormat. got a little porch light above the door, and most interesting, there's a security peep hole, a keyed handset, and a deadbolt, as well. looks very much like a residential entryway. and if you look -- well, might not be able to tell from here. the key hole's been very well used. there's a lot of traffic of that door.

security people -- and it has a mailbox, and it clearly says "mail" on the mailbox. i did actually talk to the postman, who is -- >> clerk: unfortunately your time is up. >> oh, my goodness. >> clerk: this is the second hearing on the same item. >> president hillis: but we have your letter. >> thank you. the architect noted that there was a bull bathroofull bathroo. >> president hillis: thank you for your statement. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i have a question for the architect. when you give us a cost for the construction, 125,000 for the cost of the facade retention work. that's the difference between what staff is recommending and what you're recommending. >> mr. kearny can confirm this,

but keeping the facade as costs to shore it up and keep it all in place, it drives costs way up because now you don't have a way to drive construction equipment into the site. so now, you're building the entire project with hand tools instead of being able to use heavy equipment. they'd also remove -- because you don't have a garage door there now, it removes the economic value of having parking. so it adds to the cost and reduces the value. mr. kearny may have more to say about that. >> yeah. any time you can't use mechanical equipment for a project of this size -- >> president hillis: what type of mechanical equipment? >> jackhammers -- >> president hillis: you can walk a jackhammer through the front door? >> well, we need the excavator, bob cat -- >> president hillis: but you wouldn't need to excavate it if

you kept the parking, and added the two levels on the top. >> no, the foundation would need to be replaced because it's substand. >> president hillis: what kind of foundation is it now? >> it's a concrete foundation, but i doubt it's reinforced. i doubt it's going to calc out as seismic standards. again i don't have a structural drawing -- >> president hillis: again, what is the implemental cost of the project? >> at this point, i haven't figured that or seen a set of drawings. >> president hillis: but what you're saying is what planning is recommending is infeasible. it seems like the project regardless of whether you keep

the facade is infeasible. >> it's expensive to do construction in san francisco. >> president hillis: but they do it. >> they do. >> president hillis: as well as build houses without parking. we just went through this exercise, so i'm just -- i don't necessarily get the analysis. i know -- it's not clear to me. i think what you're saying is the cost of construction is expensive. we get it in san francisco, but incrementally, i don't see the big difference between keeping the facade or not. okay. i appreciate it. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: so i just had a question related to that line of questioning. so i understood from staff that what we're seepikeeping is jus facade, so maybe staff can -- so how i understand it, if there's no garage, but there's a very large entryway, right,

that has stairs, is that also what you're proposing needs to be kept? >> staff's recommendation was to keep the entire facade. >> vice president melgar: okay. so that was also the entryway, and then, the landing -- >> correct. >> vice president melgar: and then, the side of that entryway, as well? >> yes, that's correct. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional -- commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: so again, i reviewed the estimator's documents and the staff recommendations. i am not at all convinced that these numbers are in line with what we usually use, both the per square foot of construction and the per square foot estimate of what the property is worth compared to other.

it is also not consistent with a policy that was just passed by the board of supervisors of minimum parking. and what we have consistently held in this commission. we are allowing for three units to replace a single-family house. in fact i remember the conversation was we even wanted more, and we are prioritizing housing over parking, and i think that's what this project is about. so i am, again, not ready to support this project. >> president hillis: are you supportive of staff's recommendation to support the parking and retain the units. >> vice president melgar: absolutely. >> president hillis: okay. is that a motion? >> vice president melgar: okay. i make a motion we pass the recommendation to keep the facade at three units and no parking, yes. >> commissioner moore: second.

>> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with condition with staff recommendation recommendations. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item -- item 10 has been continued to january 10, placing us on item 11 at 830 rhode island street, a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. linda ajello hoagland, department staff. [please stand by]

. >> -- request in that -- while the project does not involve demolition of an existing residential -- while the project does involve demolition of the existing residential structure, the replacement building will provide three family sized units very comparable size. the department also finds that the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available to answer any questions, i and believe the project sponsor is

also available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: okay. project sponsor? >> can i get the projector, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is charles mah. i'm the building owner. i just want to run through a few pictures on the projector as i talk about this project. so just to briefly reiterate what linda mentioned. this particular street is a mix of single, two and three-unit buildings with multiuse being the majority. they're mixed architectural styles and a mix of two, three, and four-story buildings. this building's across the street.

so i really wanted to present these pictures to present a context of what we're dealing with here. you know, when looking at these pictures, the cottage looking at it is, is really under stated in context with its neighbors. while it's listed at two stories, the top story is just an adick, attic. the rear thirds of the house is the kitchen, and it also has a 6.5% ceiling space. the exterior of the building is built on a piece of rock outcropping, which means the foundation is just sitting on top of rock and has no bearing into soil. the house in its current state

is not a candidate for supporting any families due to its side and all those noncode conforming issues i just noted. further, at 930 square feet and a last paid price of 1.4 million, it's not math per seller. and this is back a year in the fall of 2017. and -- look. so the original house was built in 1907, and just to dispel any notion it's an earthquake shock, there are two things that speak to this. the first is the dimensions of the original house at 12 by 16 do not correspond with the mass

of earthquake shacks. so we're here today to seek approval to demothe existing building so we can build a new ground up building which maximizes the zoning density of three units. the building would be four stories in toting and the top floor recessed, which is required in construction per the better roofs ordinance. the principle facade will match with existing facades. access to the roof will be via penthouse. we've explored limiting the access with regards to a roof hatch, however, the owner has informed me that the fire department will require the roof access in this case. each of the two units did-shall

sorry, each of the three units will have two units, with the bottom unit having an additional office room, and efforts were made to keep all three units equitiable, given the constraints that we're working with. so at approximately 1400 to 1500 square feet each, we feel they would be able to accommodate growing families, while being held accountable to the square footage restrictions. the lert roofs ordinance just requir -- better roofs ordinance just requires 50%. so the units, about how they're laid out, you can sort of see

the color correlation between the units. they were laid out in a staggered fashion and that was really because we were working with the constraints of the set backs from the average rear yard line. and that just left a fourth story that was simply too small to create a unit out of. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> okay. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so we'll open this item up for public comment if there is any. seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think it's an interesting way of gentrification. i like the building. the only question is how we're dealing with the green roof, which is basically a deck. i would like to see that we're using the proposed roof deck

guidelines, which, at a minimum keep all edges of the roof away from property line. i do not quite understand, since the green roof, which is basically a large deck, cannot be accessed by hatch because that's what we are doing with all other -- in all other situations where only a single party has access to the roof. this would be a commonly accessible roof by all units, this would be another story because with given occupancy, you would have to have the -- the full penthouse access, but in this particular case, it is a single unit which has a benefit of the roof. the size of the roof, since unit -- the third unit already has the balconies seems to be excessive, i would suggest that one rear holding the roof deck

badge from the edges -- back from the edges of the property, and two, the accumulative size of this roof deck cannot be more than a third of the roof surface as shown as that level. both would be minimum adjustments by which i could support the project, and i think it would be -- >> president hillis: could i just clarify, a question that you asked about the access, if this is just a private roof deck, could we ask that for the project sponsor. is that only for the upper unit? >> ryan knacke. i'm the project architect. so if you look knee hatch regulation and administrative bill number 57, it does say hatchs are approvable, but it does say the hatchs are not necessarily readily approval if it's under purview of the fire department. so since this is a three-unit

building, it's unclear if they would support the hatch. >> commissioner moore: i think the department can work with you to get that in line of all the other approvals we have made. since we do want to diminish proof top extrusions of this kind, since that is the single emphasis here, we would suggest that the department helps you with clarifying it, but in addition, i think the proper use of these rooftop -- roof deck guidelines, one-third of the size of the roof surface, including holding back from the edges is a consistent position this department has taken and the department knows how to surprise you with that process. so i make a motion to support the project approval with the modification just called out, and i see the commission in support of what extend that they do.

>> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us on item 12 for case at 3060 fillmore street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. chris may, planning department staff. you have before you a conditional use authorization request to allow a change of use from a general grocery use, which is currently vacant, formerly occupied by real food company, to a formula retail and restaurant use, doing

business as shake shack, a gym use doing business as rumble fitness, and a specialty use doing business as sup app. since the departure of the real foods in 2016, the subject property has remained have a can't and both the -- vacant and both the current owner and property manager have made attempts to lease it out without success. a third party analysis made by the project sponsor concludes due to a number of factors, it is not economically feasible for a grocery store use to operate at the property while at the same time providing the owner with an economical return. the proposed restaurant about occupy 3650 square feet of the building on the southeast corner of fillmore and filbert

streets. the proposed specialty grocery use will occupy 700 square feet within the same building, and the proposed gym use will occupy the entire 6600 square feet fronting filbert street. no alterations to either facade are proposed. the proposed shake shack requires conditional use authorization for being a formula retail use, an evening and drinking use, and use for the union street n.c.d. it would increase the use of formula retail space in the vicinity from 12 to 13% as measured by the number of storefronts and from approximately 12 to 16% as measured by the total linear frontage. with the proposed change of use to a restaurant, the concentration of commercial frantage dedicated to adding

and drinking establishments would increase from 25 to 29%. commissioners, since the publication of the staff report, the department has received approximately 180 letters of support and approximately 16 letters in opposition to the project, which i have here. the department continues to recommend that the planning commission approve the project on the basis that the proposed mix of restaurant, gym, and specialty grocery uses will fill a currently have a can't storefront, there by enhancing the viability of the surrounding neighborhood commercial district. on balance, the project adheres to the policies of the general plan and is in general compliance with all applicable requirements of the planning code. this concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you.

project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners and president of the commission. i want to thank you for allowing us to come in front of you today. we are very excited to bring this proposal in front of you. we've worked over the past 15 months, working with neighborhood groups, residents, and adjacent businesses to craft a proposal that is responsive to the needs of the community. as you can see, i'm joined by yvette davis of berg davis, who is here to discuss the outreach efforts we went through in going through this process. >> president hillis: you need to -- there it is. >> i'm also joined by representatives of shake shack, amina group, and rumble fitness in case the commission has any

questions. 3060 fillmore, situated on the corner of fillmore and filbert streets, long vacant, the sponsors were attracted to the el gans of this building. from the out set, we were committed to preserving the architectural beauty of this building. the project will consist of -- the project will consist of three new-to-san francisco tenants: shake shack, rumble fitness, and a new grocery store concept. wanted to say a couple of words about our tenants. shake shack chose 3060 fillmore at its first potential restaurant in san francisco because of the iconic look of the architecture and the

location of the building within the community. shake shack intends to showcase the bay area's best purchaveyo. center cal and shake shack are dedicated to working with the city to create dedicated loading zones during peak hours. additionally, they are not intending to do any offset delivery for the first two months of their operation so they can focus on the customers within their store. the tenant that i'm most excited about, the grocery, is a new concept by michael mina and his restaurant group. it is a new concept that will be based on organic foods and coffee, juice, and other operations. this is -- this is a rendering of the inside of the facility, so you can see that there's a

dairy case with milk and cheese and yogurt, there's dry goods, juices, there's prepared foods to go. rumble fitness is not just another gym. rumble's an exciting new fitness concept based out of new york. 70% of rumble's participants are female, and rumble expects the fillmore studio to be a very successful studio that caters to the neighborhood. one of the things that we dealt with in working on this project was the physical constraints of the building. the building is considered historic, so we intended not to affect the outside of the building. in addition, there was a large shear wall that separates the two buildings, as well as a grade brake -- or a grade difference between the street

and the finished part of the building. one of the things that we heard from our meetings with the community is how important the grocery component is, so when we started this project, we started meeting with the grocery stores. center cal as a country has done a significant number of shopping centers. we've done approximately 20 grocery anchor projects, so we started meeting with grocery stores, and one of the things we understood was from the more kme conventional grocers is the challenge of parking. we created a timeline of all the discussions we've had and all the tenants. after meeting with a number of the community groups, we went after smaller grocers, meeting with luke's and by-rite. i want to invite yvette davis to join us to talk a little bit about the outreach and some of the community meetings we've had. thank you.

[please stand by]

over the only property in our neighborhood designated for general grocery use. i think an important question we should be asking is, why this building. if shake shack wants to be in our neighborhood, why aren't they seeking one of the spaces already designated as a restaurant? conversely we have a plethora of workout facilities.

rumble fitness could be seeking other spaces in the neighborhood not zoned as a grocery store. if these companies truly care about the health of the places where they want to do business, why are they petitioning to get rid of the only place in our neighborhood zoned to sell groceries? it's worth remembering why real foods closed in the first place, a huge rent hike forced them out. some of you remember our then supervisor advocating for a real foods. if the owners are asking for rent that is too high for a grocery store to pay, it seems they are at the root of their own problems. in other words, making your property untenable by making it too expensive for the tenants it's zoned for should not be the excuse to rezone your property. why are we helping the owners fix a problem that they themselves created? the consequences of which have been hurting and impacting our community for years. i have tremendous respect for city planning and believe in its potential to design cities, communities, and neighborhoods for people to flourish. i hope the planning commission

will put the needs of our neighborhood and city above the desire of outside corporate entities and preserve the existing grocery designation for the health and vitality of all. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm mary russell. i live at 1580 filbert. i'm also a board member of golden gate valley neighborhood association. you've received a copy of the november 30 letter that we submitted regarding this proposed development. we appreciate the outreach the developers have made to our membership, but we remain opposed to their proposal. the grocery space does not fulfill the neighborhood's need for the full service that real food company previously provided. also there are already, as noted, numerous hamburger-type restaurants, as well as exercise studios in this area and

potentially other spaces for this -- these developments. please consider a continuance on a decision on this plan. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment? this way. >> tricia, regent merchants. they never came to our group. never asked. never contacted us. ever. we went to the first meeting. what i saw was a bunch of arrogant people and a member of the mayor's office of economic development saying this is going to happen. there were over about 100 people there. they said they don't want it. they want a grocery store. it's necessary for them to survive. this is a middle-class neighborhood, and i would like to keep it that way, but without

services, we have problems, particularly with parents with children. there's no necessity for another hamburger place. there are eight within five blocks that serve hamburgers. if you want me to name them, i will later. there are 23 places on union and down through the lombard corridor and halfway between lombard and chestnut that all serve hamburgers, so what is the necessity of a hamburger? what is the necessity of four gyms within five blocks? economic mix is the biggest thing, that's why chestnut street is so successful, because we have the mix. union street has higher rents and has vacant buildings because of realtors and greedy owners. the second issue is, it's increasing to 60 people an hour. of those 60 people, at least 25 are going to be driving cars,

just in the gym alone, not counting shake shack. now there's no mention of outdoor use and the noise at night. there is no mention of space for parking, but there's mention of space for bikes. this is discrimination against young families that can't afford still to live in this neighborhood. that does not maintain existing neighborhood serving businesses, because with the extra parking and the extra traffic, they are going to lose business. people simply don't come if you can't find parking. in the decision there's a differential in the hours. says 11:00 at night, the decision says 2:00 a.m. what are the neighbors getting? i ask for a continuance, because i felt that we could possibly get something as a compromise, but i don't see it.