commissioner borden: i think you've said enough. ok, so i get that we're not -- your desire is not to work on this building any further. i get that 1,000%. i will say that what is regrettable is that the planning director should not have been working with you on a building that wasn't more compliant with the first place. i mean, i think that that was the misdirection of the planning director in the beginning. and so i just think that the frustration, while i understand it, you know, to a certain extent, is not exactly our problem. it's our problem in the sense that we want to have a good project here. ultimately i am supportive because it's the c-3. i look down howard street and there are huge buildings and it's a problem when you have a district in transition from some low rises, some high rise. i would hope that you would continue to work with staff to figure out how we can make it feel more -- less bulky of a building, because i recognize that the challenges of this site, i recognize the floor plates, i work in a building that's

commissioner borden: i did actually want to say that i know the intent is to put retail on the ground floor and i would like to see that if we could get a commitment from the project sponsor that the retail would be responsive to the neighborhood as opposed to being a monday through friday sort of retail use, but a retail use that would be open to people on the weekend, a big complaint that we get from a lot of people who live in the downtown core is that most places are shut down other than the ferry building, and i guess i'd like to get, maybe we can put that in the conditions. because you want -- i remember when i met with the project sponsor, they said they were going to do indoor-outdoor space, but if they could do it so the retail is available for seven days a week, then that i think would help a lot in the usefulness that have ground floor being designed the way that it is. commissioner antonini: and this is exactly -- this never came up. but the project sponsor has mentioned that this public open space, which is quite large and will be open to the public, is the indoor-outdoor

commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: no. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passes 5-2, with commissioners moore and olague voting against. on item 12-c, commissioner. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president olague: no. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passes, 4-3. on item 12-c. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: no. president miguel: aye. that motion passed 5-2. thank you, commissioners. >> if i might interrupt, it was brought to my attention by city attorney that regarding the ceqa findings, there was discussion at the beginning of us taking it collectively and adding the ceqa findings. i was advised that the vote on item a should have included the adoption of the ceqa findings. >> the first action you take needs to include the ceqa findings. you cannot take any approval actio

commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i just thought it was interesting, the list of alumni who wept to the school. i -- went to the school. i found quite fascinating. i didn't realize it was founded in san francisco in 1863. i've seen the current building is close to where i work, it's a half a block from my office. i see lots of students going there for classes and i know it to be really valuable in changing people's lives. so, i don't think we need to have a hearing on it. commissioner antonini: i too was impressed about bird -- by their alumni and history regarding it. certainly i think that they are a great asset to have in san francisco and i think the abbreviated institution master plan looks fine to me. >> it's interesting because it is the oldest business career college in the western united states and still going strong, stronger than ever, more years ago than my memory. my mother took shorthand there. very pre-computer. >> thank you. that would conclude this hearing. the commission has dete

commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i understand the concern of middle polk. and even if somebody came through with a conditional use for a restaurant, saying they wanted to do hot food, say, they could still do indian food or somebody else could come in all together. to say that the use runs with the tenant and not the applicant at the time and the public pause in consideration doesn't make sense to make this retail sense into a restaurant space. and it sounds like there is issues trying to get retail in this space. that area of polk there is a need for more eyes on the street because it starts to get a little less -- there is a gap between activity on the street there and there's been issues with prostitution and other. and night eyes on this street seems like it would be a good advantage that a restaurant provid provides. if you look at the neighborhoods that are thriving in general, they are also restaurants that have helped rejuvenate the neighborhood. and part of the challenge is people aren't doing retail. shops are shutting down on every street. i see

president miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i think it's a good idea. it might make sense. although you could say that they'd have to provide it offsite. if you're going to alou it to be residential streets, then we could actually ask for it to be offsite, not be on the property, right? i think that would make a lot more sense. nobody wants them to build a garage for a car share space but if there's a concern that there isn't readily accessible cars in the area, maybe we we would want to deal with it that way by saying that you don't have to provide it or the option was to provide it in the neighborhood, notting in. >> -- not within the building. something more attentive so you can deal with both. >> yes, they would be -- currently now you could allow the car share requirement by providing a car share space within a quarter -- quarter-mile radius. sometimes it may be difficult to procure that sight. commissioner borden: would it make sense for this legislation to say if it's a preference that we conet want to require car share but should the building wa

president miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: today i am going to speak to the >>. they're meeting at 455 golden gate. i went to say how we support the high speed rail and how our planning practices of co-locating transit -- helping with transit is critical in why high speed rail needed to have it in san francisco. we were able to highlight some concerns that we've had about the separation of streets along 7th and 16th and commons that would break up mission bay from the rest of the city in the current plan. also there was an gnarl the chronicle about temporary structures to take over the vacant land. i wondered if that would be something that become through the planning commission because it's just a temporary land use. >> thank you marco from the planning department. no, this is going through section 312. so it's just a basic neighborhood notification. the project doesn't involve any entitlements that would become to you. commissioner borden: it sounded really fascinating, a really great innovative idea but just how to better understand and how it's going to come

president miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: yeah. i can understand -- i went to look at a project and i can understand the size and the scale for what's currently on second street, the concerns by the neighborhood. but it is the c-3 district where density and height is 350. and i guess my question just very generally, as i look at the code-compliant alternative, and even with the alternative, it's still a 350-foot height predominantly in the height and still a shadow exception. so i guess i'm not really clear. maybe you can talk about based on what we see here, it doesn't seem like you can easily design a building that can -- it looks like you'd have to design a pyramid-type building to actually not have the shadow be an impact. i guess what i'm trying to be clear on is, what is it that people are asking for? the code-compliant alternative still has the same shadow issue. >> the code-compliant alternative -- and this is one of my comments -- is not a code-compliant alternative because it walks away from 146-a. there is a plan in the

president miguel: commission ee borden. commissioner borden: for me the most productive thing is if there were conditions, all of our restaurants have similar conditions and the only condition that would be different would be really the two timing and if they want to have entertainment, that is something they have to come back for. if they want a liquor license, that is something they have to come back for so there's nothing other than food service and the hours of operation that we particularly have -- we can add all the extra trash and a lot of the conditions, most of the standard conditions that we put on these sort of uses but if there are ones that are missing, we can add them. the only real differences that we usually debate about is the liquor license and hours issue and the entertainment issues an and those would both have to come back to the commission. so in my perspective, that is kind of why i'm not concerned about it because you can't do anything crazy with the space because you can't without coming back to the

president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: 1 as a question and one is a suggestion. in terms of presidio, and know it is not our land and we cannot program that, but i do not see it counted in the housing. is that because we don't have any management over and we don't bother to count that? >> if you are referring to the data section, it should indicate the number of housing units and i can look into that. commissioner borden: it would be interesting to have that association included, because even though it is not in our jurisdiction, it is still part of the units. we could figure out ways and the future to work with presidio, if that is never possible. the other thing, when we talk about affordability, which bought about least to own. in other cities they have the least own concept -- lease to own concept. that is really common in other areas, but we never talk about it here in san francisco. this is an all policy document, but maybe we put in language about affordability and home ownership and other kinds

commissioner borden: thank you for that. i know we see in general a lot of bulk exceptions, whether it's affordable housing, for-profit housing or office buildings. and i think at some point we should have a hearing -- i mean, i'd like to better understand what is wrong with our code maybe, that we have this problem fairly often. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, thank you. i guess for me, i understand that -- and i think this is right. a code-compliant building, as people have been trying to point out, probably is not going to result in anything that's substantially -- i hate to use the word different, but you're not going to get what you think you're going to get for those who testified along those lines. and i think the project sponsor and architects have probably pointed that out also. for me becoming code compliant isn't the issue. i just think that the mass and scale of this building is too big for the site and location that it's at, adjacent to a conservation district and in this part of

commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i remember when this item came up the last time because there was a lot of people from the neighborhood talking about how this couple from virginia who said they moved to west portal because of their experience with the business and i remember all of that and i also remember advocating for later hours and at that time the biggest concern was related to the fact that you were affiliated with wine styles which was a national affiliation. and that was the primary, you know, issue and reason that we really -- that this commission cut the hours back. i know i was supportive of longer hours in the first place because i hate having to see things come back if we can solve them once. i appreciate mr. mccartle's concern but i also get frustrated because people treat the planning commission as if it's their place to protect their business from competition and, you know, competition is the basic tenant of society and presumably competition allows the customer choices, to choo

president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i think commissioner sugaya did point out a couple of things that were interesting but i think that what the cleanup and part of the discrepancy is is there is actual practice in things we're doing in the code that we nevada do and are there. we could argue perhaps we should actually do them, but i guess it makes more sense to have the code clear on things we actually do and make sure that everything is in clean with all the different plans that we have out there as opposed to waxing that we keep things and provisions in the code for the sake of the fact they are already there knowing that there's not intent to do those thing. and that makes a lot of sense and some of the things that commissioner sugaya pointed out were things that were not in the existing code and that is why it seems like a substantive change but not if at all called policy and we can have a conviction about whether or not in term of notifications or the things that are brought up here and how w