alternatives, a partial preservation alternative and a code alternative. a preservation alternative would reduce the impact to the resource to less than significant levels. where the proportional alternative, even the litigation would have significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources. it would be less compared to the project variance. i will talk a little bit about each of the alternatives. alternatives b is the full preservation. creating an alternative, to reflect the findings of the national registry nomination and receive the characters of the building and along with the features of the site and landscape as identified in the national register nomination. the existing footprints of the main building will be retained in the entirety. new construction is limited to the northern portion of the

site. the site will be located on the main portion of the site to the west. the full preservation alternative would reduce impact. the alternative would partially meet part of the objective. this is another diagram showing just the viewpoints of the alternatives. i will talk about the alternative c. which is the full preservation residential alternative. the approach to preparing alternative or retain most of the characters of the features of the site and landscape and the main building are identified. and also offers increased development by removing the annex building. in addition to demolishing the parking lot. this allows for increased development along the north and western portions of the site. also, the southern portion of the site increasing development. under the alternative, most of

the characters of the features of the office building and the landscape would be retained by focussing development to the north and western portions of the site. alternatives c would reduce impacts to a less than significant level but would meet most of the project objectives. alternative d is the partial preservation which focussed on character defining features of the office building and allowing for an increased development on the surrounding settlement of the landscape. the existing office building would be retained for the most part for the use of office space. new construction would take place on the northern and northwestern portions of the site. under the alternative, most of the character defining features of the office building would be retained. the landscape features would be impacted including the terrace west to the site and the curb in the driveway and pathway to the north. although alternative d would have less of an impact to the

project areas, each building alterations to the character defining features of the site and landscape would cause -- and alternative d would meet most of the project objectives also. alternative b is the partial preservation of residential alternative. and in comparison with alternative d, alternative d would allow for increased development on the site. the southern portion of the main office building. the alternative, the character defining features of the main building. along with some character defining features of the landscape in the site would be retained. the development would take place on the northern portions of the site. the alternative d would reduce impact to the historically sourced with the project variance. lastly, alternative d would partially meet most of the project objectives.

alternative f is the code confirming alternative that evaluates the level of development permitted in addition to retain some portion of the main building allowing all the character defining features of the site and landscape. although more of the existing structure exists in the california street would be partially retained in comparison with the proposed project variance. when considered together with the site, the alternative would not reduce the historical source to less than a significant level. the impact of f would be those similar to the project variance. and lastly, alternative f would partially or fully meet all the project objectives. thank you. >> i would like to remind

everyone that the public hearing is scheduled for december 13th. comments must be submitted for the public hearing on the eir website or submitted by 5 p.m. on december 24th. after the commission hearing, there will be responses to all the relevant comments on the draft. the publications will be before the commission. this the members of the team will answer any questions you have. >> do we have questions?

>> there is one question on the site open space. so the evaluation, the proposed project has more open space, is that correct? or am i mistaken on that? which is it? >> the parking lot is in the development space available. >> that was a statement, i heard. the proposed project is actually increasing the open space? >> that is the position of the proposed project. >> thank you. >> any other further questions for clarification? >> so we have quite a bit of public comment here. what i will do is i will call a

few names. we will do this quicker. the speakers, they have right now. nan come up first, miss goldenberg and the others can line up on the side. >> would this be a good time for you to remind all that what we are here to do. whatever we are going to say can be as focussed. >> sure, the commissioners will make it public. the commissioner will review and comment on the eir they will be doing for the planning

commission to make sure that we conquer with the findings with the early historic resources. and they are adequately started and we will focus on comments today. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am nancy, a preservation architect and architect historian. we were hired by ucff to look at the properties of 2010. and at that time there has a potential historic resource. we are assisting the improvement association with developing an alternative preservation alternative. i also happen to be a neighbour living in the nearby neighbourhood. i am very familiar with this site. as you know, the property is on the site of the former long valley cemetery cyprus trees

remain. the proposed project would remove at least within of these trees. we just heard a very good background history on the property. but i would like to add that the property was designed with full integration between the building and the landscape. so they both work together to create this resource. it is listed on the california register and provides also a welcome green space in the center of a fairly dense urban area. i would like to speak in support of the association's alternative because it not only preserves the building in its entirety, but also the very significant landscape. this alternative also provides more housing than the alternatives currently included in the draft eir. the alternative would use the existing building for housing and add townhouses, matching scale on those on the opposite side of california.

i also agree with the association that the retail that is included in the project is not needed and may actually be detrimental for the adjacent laurel village. not only is the property next door a village but also near retail on sacramento street, and also the city center mall, a few blocks away. the association has maximized the housing component which we know is desperately needed in the city. thank you. >> thank you. katherine mackenzie? >> the commissioner, the laurel heights improvement association. on the open space, the city is

allowing them to have concrete pathways counted as open space. the property and the landscaping are listed on the california register as a significant example of modern corporate headquarters with landscaping features that were designed to compliment and promote the integration between indoor and outdoor spaces. t the beautif the front of the building is an existing pathway through that opens into the terrace and continues. so there is no need to cut a pathway through the building. there is one. and the eir says that the proposed project would bring an adverse change in the resource by cutting the pathway through,

demolishing the south wing. however, needed housing can be achieved without causing this. the agency should not approve the project if there is an alternative. there are alternatives which are feasible. the commission should support our committee full preservation alternative because it is better. it would be built in about three years, rather than the 7-15 years for the project. and it would include the same number of housing units as the proposed project, 558, with a variance. new buildings along california street. it would retain the majority of the 185 mature trees, including the 115 cyprus trees which is from the original cemetery. it is a historical landmark.

retain the existing cafe and child care center. we have the architect to draft it up and we will provide comments on the eir. it is the better than the new residential alternative c which you have not seen but was added to the draft. because it would have 24 less housing units than the proposed project and substantially -- which are not permitted under the zoning. because there is concern about the impacts on the village. and the commission should recommend that some of the 44,000 feet of retail should be transformed into 24 residential units so that it matches the same number of units as the project and there is not a pretext for rejecting it. i attended all the meetings. we got going as soon as we could with our nomination. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon. i am richard frisby. with laurel heights. this picture, there is not a lot to discuss. the picture and the listing on the california register. it simply speaks for itself. again, the commissioners spoke eloquently and more than i can with the principles associated with 33 california street. construction of the historic site. it is important to look at this. the black indicates building. historic buildings that will be

destroyed by the developers. the red develops, the historic landscape. 95% that will be destroyed by the plan presented by the developers. frankly, anyone tasked with the heritage of san francisco could count this as mindless destruction -- of the site. i want to talk about preserving. here is the development plan. this is not a question of housing. this is a question of historic preservation. also, it took less than five years to build the tower. how to perceive.

they want to pay attention to the issue, because this is housing. this is an historic site. so here is my adaptation. i modified the table of the table 641. on the left is the developers proposal. in the middle is the alternative and on the right is the alternative c which is close it preserving. to doesn't provide sufficient housing. historical preservation, which is your concern. the number of housing units, this should be the city's

concern, time to build the 558 units, 7-15 years. i think that is all the more concern. so the more seriously one looks, the more favourable the plan becomes. we preserve all the historic characteristics of an iconic site in a city that would do well to protect its history. we provide the housing that is needed. we provide it in a timely fashion. we don't bring more retail into an area where it is unneeded. and close the store fronts along sacramento. so with that, i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon.

i am the resident at laurel heights. i support the views of our community in preserving this historical site. i have lived in this area since 1985. i -- we talk fondly of this. this is an area that is uncomparable to anywhere else in the city. the amount of green space that is offered to the community, the people have come up there, people who drive through there, i have driven through this area thousands of times before i

finally moved there. and i feel really lucky to be in this neighbourhood. the destruction of this site in order to construct the 13 or 15 buildings is horrifying. to put through to the residents of the neighbourhood and the people who have to commute through this area to and from work. it is not just laurel heights, but people out to richmond who have to come through this major commute route through california street. they are all affected. hundreds of thousands of ground dirt that needs to be excavated. the trees that we love so much

are like rare species on the property. the air pollution, and all the noise that we have to put up with. they said 7 to 15 years. so the worse case scenario, 15 years, that is like half a generation. can you imagine if you have a child who is 4, my neighbour's son is 5. he will be like off to college by the time this is done. so that is a horrifying thought, i think for the neighbourhood. and i hope all of you will look at the alternatives the community has come up with deeply. thank you. >> thank you. i will call the next group of speakers. bill cutler. jim colby and andrew harvey.

if you could, be first and you can line up behind. we appreciate it. >> good afternoon. my wife and i lived in laurel heights in california street for over 45 years. over the decades, we have seen changes to the neighbourhood. some of them positive, some negative. but this proposal, promises to be one of the worst. it violates the zoning laws, the character of the district. i attended a number of meetings worrying about the scope of the project. including viewing diagrams of the proposed changes to the existing structure and nothing was ever said to the community about the historic nature of the property by the builders. everyone recognizes the need for more affordable housing in san francisco and we support construction of housing on the

site, the time proposal, 7-15 years to complete includes unnecessary retail space, creates major traffic and parking problems. ignores the beautiful. the only green space left in the entire neighbourhood by destroying the majority of the trees that we cannot afford to lose with climate change. the high density of the proposed traffic will increase traffic flow, increase pollution and contribute to loss of property, where it is almost impossible to find adequate street parking even for residents like myself. fortunately with the work of our neighbours, there is a better way to address the need for development in laurel hill that meets the housing demands and protects the historic building and the beautiful landscaping that surrounds it. it is called the neighbourhood full preservation alternative.

it provides the same number of residential housing units as the project, 558 with a 744 variance, presents the majority of the 185 mature trees and does not include the major retail. the only negatively impact the shopping center that borders the site and has two supermarkets, starbucks and a hardware store, boutiques and a variety of other shops and businesses. we don't need retail in the area. we need affordable housing without existing the housing laws and using the available space exclusively for housing that would allow for middle class families. it can be built in approximately three years. not 15. by using available parking lots currently on the site, it can also help mitigate the parking problem.

finally, one must question how accurate any eir can be for a project that may not be finished for 17 years given the proposed starting date of 2020. and 15 years of construction. housing in the city is severe and needs to be solved. (please stand by) -- >> thank you. >> hi, good afternoon, i am colleen ryan. i live in the neighbourhood. i grew up in the neighbourhood and went to school there. and so did my house. i appreciate your time. for years we walked our dogs there. we have three kids in the neighbourhood. that is an iconic space. it would be such a shame to lose the view. (please stand by)

>> thank you. ann harvey. >> on this day i'd like to thank you for your service.

i'd never heard of this commission before. i'd like to speak on behalf of people who want to be in san francisco and i know what we're looking for and our sons were born here and my husband and i made our lives here and thought of moving out of the city to have more green space. we never did it. we've done overseas projects but never left the city. we're still here and my son went to nursing school and grew up here and they love the city. i think it's a beautiful resource. we need housing. i know that. the neighborhood alternative is the way to go. it's so beautiful to walk up the hill. people talk about architecture

but never talk about landscape architecture. i never heard of landscape architecture before. i live on union street and we have a lovely, i call my hidden neighborhood secret behind the letterman digital art studio. it's beautiful there. people drive by. it's lovely landscape architecture. what makes san francisco very nice is the walkability and being there and enjoy being there and walking around and not having cars go by. i was so surprised when i came here from the east coast how lovely and peaceful it is here. it's a different vision. i'd like to preserve it not because it's old but because it's beautiful. it seems like a wonderful thing to see the architecture.

>> azarine mandaria. >> thank you for taking the time to let us take the time to talk to you today. i have lived in the city since 1988, and we bought that property in '89, my siblings and i. we brought it because at the time my mother was 80 years old it's a beautiful location, very safe, very calm and we need to preserve it. i'd like to have nor neighbors so buildings there but no retail. everybody talked about it so i won't repeat everything but i support what the laurell heights association is doing and would like for to you give it consideration. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment?

please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i don't usually show up for this but nice to see you. the existing territory lends an aesthetic quality with the trees and the quant proposed of smaller trees as replacements are not sufficient to impart the equivalent aesthetics or carbon potential on the california-listed historic property. there is mentioned the existence of 17. there's a band that lies the northeast to southwest corner of the city. it doesn't state the geological formations like certain rocks. they may be important for scientist have published studies

to carbon sequestration. without knowing the exact nature and quality of the formations in the sand it's silent on the mitigation measures. also the sand in the area may already contain the soil which may be used for propagating plants and light was brought into the windows and it's unclear on the appropriateness of the building. it mentioned mitigations for physically handling bodies that may be discovered from the old laurell hair cemetery. it's not mentioned they would impact residents in the area. it's documented when the other bodies were moved the odor still carried on the wind. the d.i.r. doesn't have a

mitigation plan for the odors and the d.i.r. stated it would not be in conformance standards, 1, 2,5, 9, and 10 and it would alter the historic significance of the building and site. how will the new details be determined such as additional features being put in the proposed project to be appropriate to the existing building? this is not clear in the d.e.i.r. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is eileen rogen. i'm the vice president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. the coalition has taken a formal position on the preservation of the site. i'm also the president of the sunset park side education and action committee also known as speak. i'm here in favor of the laurell heights improvement community

option. it fulfills the housing goal while preserving the site for its historic and architectural and landscape integrity. it also does not compete with any of the retail which already exist which is is already under pressure from the internet and it also does not -- it keeps some of the office space. i think the laurell heights improvement association has a proven track record of working with developers on the pcmp california sight and the lucky penny site in achieving consensus. this project has been more challenging than the other ones. i would urge you to support the laurell heights improvement community option. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on the item? if so, please come forward.

seeing no further comment, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner black? >> i won't make my comment last time about housing because i realize it's outside the scope of the discussion. i wanted to start our discussion with looking at what is in our purview which is do these alternatives meet the objectives that we're supposed to be looking at. did i meet most the project objectives and do they appear to be feasible? there's six alternatives in addition to the proposed project and variance. in my experience in looking at a lot of e.i.r.s there were a lot of alternatives developed. i do note there's two full and

two partial alternatives which is a high number and it adds to the overall cost of preparing such an e.i.r. and it's my understanding though i wasn't at the a.r.c. meeting three of the alternatives were revived to address the a.r.c.s comments since the meeting. one of the things i did want to mention and i think this is within our purview is that most the alternatives change the corporate campus relationship with the landscape space to the existing building. to the extent the development agreement could achieve a very robust treatment of landscaping to the property, outside of the mitigation measures proposed, i think that could be one of the public benefits of the agreement that could reduce impact of any

of these additional alternatives. it's certainly something we heard from members of the public and certainly something that charact characterizes the site now. i think it would have it's own mitigation in terms of the physical street impact of whatever happens to this property. >> thank you, that was a good start. commissioner pearlman. >> thank you to everyone who m xam -- came out to speak on the progress. i will hold myself back from going to the planning commission side of things and people who spoke today are more appropriate to the planning commission than the commission here today.

i want through all the alternatives and went to the site today. i driven by a million times but i went today and walked around to get a sense of what the impact is to this historic resource. and what i'm reminded of is the marrin center by frank lloyd wright which was built at the same time, contemporaneous to this project and with the very same kind of consciousness of the building tied to the landscape and i was trying to imagine if someone proposed to build a city around the marrin civic center. the kind of outcry there'd be around the nation and world and how that would completely diminish the qualities of the historic character of that. and i went through each of these

project alternatives and it seems to me the one that comes closest, i don't think it's completely done, but comes closest to balancing the project sponsor's desires for development as well as the community's desires is the alternative of the full preservation residential alternative. it seems strange to me you would keep office on this site given the need for residential development in the city and office is kind of am am

empathetical and what's significant and one of the speakers spoke about the landscape and we often as architects, i mean, i'm an architect, we often forget about that connection and the connection between coming up masonic and pine, that side is specifically what this building and what the landscape is is about. are those particular directions and their use. clearly the community is using the landscape as part of the community. that seems significant. this development pushes the development onto california street which it seems appropriate because there's a big wall there. i don't really get a sense of the building from there and a sense of the building and the landscape from california street. kind of do slightly from the walnut street entrance but even

that is minimal. building up a street wall on california is an appropriate urban design element. and then the one thing that to me is is taking away from the extent of the length of the building entirely and you might as well tear down the building because the building has no historic value as a historic resource in that regard and building around it completely, you don't even see the building. the whole purpose of this as a historic resource is completely gone. i think that's it. it seems the other issues are planning commission issues. i am confused a little bit because everybody talks about the neighborhood alternative and

we never saw the neighborhood alternative. we got some information from the laurell heights organization but there was no plan in there so it's hard to even address what everybody spoke about without having anything to look at. certainly you should submit the plan itself. make sure that gets into the planning commission to get your ideas across. so that's where i come down. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner johnck. >> i'm interested in the findings of the historic resource evaluation. i want to first of all, thank the public and laurell heights community association for their

work on bringing the nenk -- energy they brought forward for bringing is this so the historic district eligibility. i think it's terrific what you've done here. so i think the findings to date are adequate except for i wanted the staff to comment. nancy goldberg mentioned as a remnant of the cemetery and wanted response or confirmation the cemetery is an important part of the cultural landscape

and that is affirmatively discussed in the e.i.r. and the trees are documented as an important part of one of these preservation alternatives. so i'll end there before i get into the alternatives. but eye very smart colleague of mine and my staff did a very good presentation about the cemetery and the archaeology of cemeteries in san francisco. it was part of the interns this past summer. and so i want to point out the value of the cemetery. >> i wonder because i remember reading in the e.i.r. the cemetery say -- is a listed non-extent resource. i'm curious whether you can address that. >> it's listed as a california historic landmark but it's norm

like 250. 760. that was before they established a criteria and that would be ceqa resource so it's not considered a ceqa resource as a california historic landmark. >> okay. and regarding the trees? >> the mature trees are one of the character-defining feature of the land scape. when they designed the landscape they did incorporate some of the trees from when it was part of the laurell hills cemetery. those would be incorporated as the character-defining features of the site. >> commissioner john, don't go yet. >> one of speakers said the trees were landmarked. is that true?

>> i can't speak to the trees are landmark but maybe the idea of the california landmark which was the laurell hills cemetery. >> i will say, it's a little remarkable to me. i watched this thing being built -- i wasn't of a cemetery in those days and watched the world village being built. it's a site with which i'm very familiar and a site i sometimes have very much admired over the years and other times i thought was one of the most awful things

got ever created. so tastes and times change. but still, it's such an important resource for to us have. it is a shame and an agree with i would say virtually everything commissioner pearlman said and i'm sorry the neighborhood alternative wasn't in the e.i.r. since it wasn't, we couldn't discuss it other than to say we wish it'd had been and i hope as did you and i think everybody else -- i think as commissioner black started out by saying that there are a lot of alternatives here and some are better than others but i think they're all reasonable and rational and i do think all the issues have been identified and covered. it's the historic preservation issues.

>> thank you, commissioner hyland. >> i hope with my comment we'd be saying the same thing but based on yurs -- yours i don't think we'll be saying the same thing. there's a couple things we can do in our purview. while the community alternative isn't before us, one can infer it and the full preservation alternatives and the preservation d and the partial preservation e. it's interesting the choices that were made in how to define the program for each of those alternatives. and i do think that we could get a full preservation alternative that combines the three that would probably be close to the community alternative. because of that, i would take

exception to say it's not an adequate analysis just yet. and if this was an article 10 or an 11 property, it would then come back before us for a c of a that then we'd have some opportunity to influence the actual design of the new structure in relation to the historic property. but because it's not, this is one of those property all we get to do is have our influence on the draft e.i.r. some of the building heights when it came before us in the i.r.c., i encouraged the project team to look at densifying and building up on california which i didn't compare what was presented at the i.r.c. but i think they attempted to do that. i think the partial preservation

alternative e the residential buildings are lower than the business, the office alternative. i think there's further work to be done. i think the neighbors have expressed an interest in coming to a win-win. it's not a situation where they're up here opposing the project. they're saying, hey, let's figure this out to get the housing we need and keep what's important to our community. with that, i would suggest that this is going before the planning commission on december 13. i would ask the planning commission to hold off and ask the project team to look at this and create a real preservation alternative that deals with this and then send it back to us for further review and comment.

>> i guess i'm not -- i'm not entirely clear, commissioner hyland when you say deals with this. we're looking whether the alternatives are feasible and meet most the sponsor's objectives and whether they're present -- like if you had a preservation alternative we felt didn't meet the standards we'd say it wasn't a preservation alternative. i'm not clear. >> the full preservation alternative c, if plaza building a was 65 feet tall instead of 45. if plaza building b, well, it is 65 and 67, there's further dense ti. they can potentially even go up higher. the other thing that hasn't been adjudicated and that is the interpretation beyond the vertical addition of the

historic resource. up to now there's never really been a project that could accommodate more than a one-story addition. therefore, it's kind of common understanding and case law an appropriate vertical addition is one story. this project could accommodate multiple stories. so there's other options here and whether we get that through ceqa or how that gets evaluated, we could have an 80 or 90-foot addition over the building. >> what i'm not understanding is this alternative say meets the objective and preserves the character-defining features of the site you can do 100 alternatives.

>> some are to have pedestrian access directly through linking masonic and i'm not sure the street. some objectives are more subjective but aren't just about the number of units. there's no scheme that could meet all the objectives because of the way they're written. one of the objectives is knitting this parcel in to the scale of neighborhood blocks. it's not feasible to meet that objective. >> in response to commissioner high -- hyland, when this is all said and done and e.i.r. certified, the project sponsor will come up with a project. the project isn't going to be exactly one of these. i assume it will then

incorporate the feedback that's come. for instance, they'll have to meet the objectives as defined in the certified e.i.r. it seems like they'll come through and they can open up the first floor and have that be completely open. that would be more in keeping with the full preservation alternative than splitting the building. it seems like you don't need a million alternatives. >> if all tern tif c as the full preservation alternative had more build out to it, it would achieve more of the project goals and therefore would then become a clearly superior project. currently, that's not being evaluated in the e.i.r. i think the other part of this

is schedule. this is one of those projects where going a little slower and getting this right is going to get the community on board and get the project approved faster. even though our responsibility as a historic preservation community is to protect what the community thinks is important and the planning commission is looking to us for advice. i don't think it's too out rageous to ask them or outrageous to ask them to do another alternative that combines some of these things and maybe gets a better project for the project sponsor. if we ended up with a two-story edition over the building, if this was before us as a 10 or 11, they'd be asking for a c of

a to say that's acceptable and we'd probably accept that. >> i think we could ask for refinement in the alternative but i'm not sure i'd say based on looking at the v.r. it doesn't adequately provide alternatives. >> the question is is this a design exercise or are we count on the e.i.r.? i'm not sure this is meant to be a design exercise right now. we have mr. fine. >> if i may interject to be helpful for clarity for staff. in the past this commission has spoke how to improve a preservation alternative to make it legally defensive to explore all the potential options at the site. as he mentioned, we could do 100

preservation alternatives but it's not really the scope of the e.i.r. because we haven't had an opportunity to really look at the neighborhood alternative because it's something the community developed on themselves, for instance, because we're in the review and comment period, if this commission would like some variation of that neighborhood alternative to be incorporated specifically into the alternatives, that's the type of guidance i think we'd be able to respond to in a meaningful way. it's also to help give the prime minister team a little more clarity on once they achieve that, are we done or will there be a whole new range of preservation alternatives to look at? i think some clarity like in the past and saying alternative b with two more floors is what we'd like to see. that gives an appropriate, clear direction on how what to explore and then go to the planning

commission and we're happy to share your letter specifically with the planning commission during the review and comment if you think it's vital to continue the dialogue with the two commissions. >> we've come a long way, baby, in encouraging project sponsors and the planning department to bring preservation alternatives to us first before they go ahead and do the draft e.i.r. i just got to say, we're doing a great job. we want to make sure the preservation is officially recognized and up corp rated into the project. -- incorporated into the project. how do we best do that? commissioner hyland your idea

of still looking at other objectives is fine as far as vision but i'm looking at it from preservation and the full preservation c or b are had c -- adequate. i'm interested in the preservation plan. i'd like to recommend we ask for that plan to be brought into the discussion of the e.i.r. and submitted to the planning commission. i think you've probably already done that or have been trying to do that. i'd definitely recommend that. as far as what we got, these are adequate but i want to see what the community has with looking at c. i just want to say in terms of what we're trying to achieve here, you know, i looked at the project objectives, where's 11?

there's 10 project objectives and nothing says anything about the historic resource and the cultural landscape, why not? why not say that? it would get us closer to what we're trying to do here. there's open space but of course the landscape, that's the point is the building. i think in the future as we ask for project sponsors as we ask for corporation and objectives. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i have a question of it could be our e.i.r. staff, would consideration of the neighborhood plan assumt