john kettle here with reuben, junius, and rose. we are representing one of the building owners in chinatown. chinatown has some of the strictest and most detailed zoning codes in the city, understanding the special unique community and resource that chinatown is. as of today, the zoning has size controls that employ very strict maximums on the size of the commercial spaces. in china unto, you cannot go -- chinatown, you cannot go over 4,000 or 5,000 square foot, depending on the building you're in, and there's no availability to go to ask for a variance to that. it's to maintain the small neighborhood scale of chinatown. i will note in recent years, these controls have been begun to be applied on upper floors of the building that, practically speaking, we have not seen that happen before, and that's kind of been happening as the last year has gone on, so this is any space in a building, second floor, third floor, as well. this legislation does help with that. it allows to exceed these use size limits for certain nonprofits. as of r

justin zucker from reuben, junius, and rose. we would preserve the existing facade and would incorporate a thoughtfully designed addition that would bring new life to the building and neighborhood. the proposed project has gone through extensive review, having come to this commission twice before, and it has gone before the planning commission on november 12, 2020, for review of the draft e.i.r. during those multiple hearings and throughout the prior six years before this proposal, never was the building described as a historic building worthy of landmark designation. in fact, page and turn ball and a.r.g., after extensive research and analysis, concluded that the building is not a historic resource. during that hearing, this building provided the comments of existing recommendations, and those were considered and implemented in full. ownership is opposed to the landmark designation. as noted, the period of significance is 1907 to 1967, yet the original building had a stucco facade up to the late 60s, when it was removed, when t