Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. With that, Public Comment is closed. Commission koppel. Its a thrill to see city kids opening up businesses in the city. Supported by other city kids. [applause] theres no clapping. I know everybodys happy but [laughter] also incredibly impressed with the outreach the project sponsor did with united save the mission, hence them being here supporting. And also the conditions they did agree to, we really hold in high value. So i really appreciate the project sponsor working diligently with the community. I really respect that the sponsor has Prior Experience working in the neighborhood. Obviously very overwhelming neighborhood support, filling in a vacant storefront. The nearby businesses are going to get busier. Theres going to be more people. People are going to be happier. Im highly supportive. I would like to see what other commissioners say. Thank you. Commissioner richards. So i accompany commissioner koppel and a few of the folks in the room here too. The proposed site and really got a sense of the genuineness of the act of them wanting to integrate in the community. Rick hall gets up here and tells us that they get an a plus and three gold stars for all the stuff theyve agreed to. That says a lot to me. One other thing, i walked by hybrid gym all the time and said i was going to join and its no longer there so if you put a hybrid gym in ill come and do cannabis and do some boxing. I move to approve. Second. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. What are the uses of the floors above this space . I believe two floors. The upper floors are occupied by arts activity uses. Its i believe a Community Space. Both floors are Community Space . Theres no residential uses above. Im saying both floors are Community Space . Thats my understanding, yes. Commissioner diamond. Staff recommendation to approve but without the lounge . Yes. So staffs initial recommendation was for approval with a condition of approval which is still in your packet which would prohibit onsite consumption. Our policy for where to allow onsite consumption is something we are still developing and learning over time, particularly in the mission district, working with our community partners, we have learned a lot that although we do want to encourage a regional corridor that preserves the retail uses and discourages destination retail which might force out those types of uses, consumption lounge may be desirable in the sense because there are a lot of persons who live in the area who lack any legal place to otherwise consume cannabis, even for medicinal purpose, particularly residents of s. R. O. Hotels. So are you changing your recommendation . Sounds like it. I defer to the commission. Im sorry. Can you please be clearer . What is the motion written . What are you asking us . To change what you have written . Yes. For the draft motion from july contains that condition of approval. If the commission would like to allow onsite consumption and remove that, i would ask for approval motion which specifically removes condition number 11. Okay. So theres a motion thats been made already. Who made the motion . Okay. What do you say . As i said at the Cannabis Retail castro and market, the neighbors will be complaining if people go out in the plaza and start smoking. They wanted to have an in the place consumption. This is an enormous space. If we let people dont let people consume onsite, they are going to go into the plaza, the bart station, we are going to hear more complaints so i think it makes an incredible amount of sense to let people smoke in the building if they would like to. Okay. I could support the retail function but i cant support the onsite consumption. Commissioner richards, did you already okay. My motion is to strike number level from the conditions and you seconded it . Commissioner moore. We had to ask for guidance about the general attitude for onsite consumption, i can only listen to the Community Voice and the community itself takes responsibility of how this is handled. In this particular case, given the number of s. R. O. S and smaller units in which rental wouldnt allow onsite, this may be just a trial case to see how that works. Okay. Theres nothing further, theres a motion to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended eliminating condition 11. On that motion [roll call vote] that motion passes 51 with commissioner fung voting against. We still have a bunch of business. Sorry. So if we could be quiet. Commissioners that will place us on item 15 for case number 2016, a conditional use authorization. The project includes interior tenant improvements, store front changes on geary street as i approved under the minor permit author and street access to the third and fourth floors. The department recommend approval with conditions for the following reasons. The project is converting less than 50 gross square feet of the building to office use. It does not displace an existing tenant and rehabilitating a vacant building. The remaining retail use wills remain an active store front presence such as visible along geary street and maiden lane that will support commercial uses in a commercial neighborhood. On balance t project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. The Department Also finds the plan to be necessary, desirable and come patable with the surrounding and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I am available for questions and the project sponsor is here to present their proposal and answer any questions. Thank you. Vice president melgar thank you very much. Do we have a project sponsor . I think with edo. So i see mr. Hapner here from supervisor peskins office. Do you want to speak . Thank you, commissioners. Pardon, i am privy to late coming information and ran up here. Wasnt expecting to speak on this today. Of course, it is our offices prerogative not to wade into the for or against on conditional use applications because they may be appealed to the board of supervisors. That said, there was an article that came to our attention a couple of hours ago, and about a disagreement in this part of the district where it appears that the proprietors of 146 geary who are here today and i was speaking with out front have requested d. R. Of a Retail Cannabis use on the ground floor next door. And further, there is apparently a desire on behalf of the Business Improvement district to craft the Luxury Retail zone, and we want to know what that is. We have never heard of that either. We were so proud of the c3r legislation premised in large part on representations from Property Owners that retail is not a viable use on the upper floors in union square, and that, frankly, even on the ground floor there have been store front vacancy issues throughout union square, and that has informed a lot of our thinking and policymaking around this. And its i think worthy of additional analysis by the planning staff in context of this application which is saying that retail is not viable here if the proprietor is simultaneously seeking to interfere in the activation of a neighboring store front. And i say that with very limited information and with all due respect to the project sponsor at 146 geary who collaborated with us in the creation of the c3r legislation which forms the basis of this application, but in light of that new information, i just do want to request a brief continuance to allow planning staff to analyze thats fa et of the issue. Thank you. When do you want to continue this to . How long would you need . I dont think it needs to be a lengthy continuance, but i pose that question to staff and staffs ability to analyze this issue. If its one week, that is fine. If its longer than that, and that is what it takes, that is fine. But i would defer to staff. Would a oneweek continuance be doable . No . So for the project sponsor, whenever a supervisor requests a continuance on a project, we always, you know, defer to them. So how long do you think we would need to study this issue . Given the holidays and with the current calendar, i think the second week in january, is that right, jonas . Well, i mean and at least in january certainly up to the commission to open up any of their hearings, but right now the first open hearing is the 16th. I think with the holidays and with the amount of work involved, it needs to be more than a week or two. Okay. This is a late request coming. Do we have to vote on the request . Because vote to continue. Commissioner fung. I think the two issues are separate. I am not supportive of a continuance. Commissioner moore . Request continuance. A we should continue taking Public Comment since we have called up the matter. Okay. Okay. Im sorry. And i think that we will take up the matter of continuance because we had already heard the staff start. Sure. Is that okay . To take up the matter of the continuance . Fk o of course, please. This wasnt introduced as a continuance matter b u the project was called out. Members of the public should be allowed to speak to it. Thank you. I think we can continue to hear it. And then we will take up the matter of the continuance thank you. Yes. If the project sponsor could great. Thank you. So it was exactly a year ago when this commission heard the First Union Square retail to Office Legislation that was proposed by supervisor peskin. Many of us worked very closely with supervisor peskin and we really appreciated the willingness to work with a lot of stakeholders to come up with controls that i a achieve a common goal. Much of the discussion a year ago focused on third floor uses and finding the right balance between retail and office uses. And coming up with controls that allow for an appropriate mix while still being supportive of the primary retail function. We do believe that this project satisfies the five factors and criteria that came out of that legislation. However, i am going to let the project sponsor mr. Steffen speak and address what just came up as well since i have a feeling we are heading towards a continuance. Mr. Steffen. Thank you. Good evening, i think it is. I am mark steffen with Realty Partners and before i talk about the presentation on this project, i would like to talk about the issue that lee brought up. Our concern initially was generated from other highend retailers that were concerned about what that might due to the street. But as weve listened to the presentation that was just ahead of us, we dont really have a problem, and if it we would be willing to pull our d. R. On the use next door. That is not an important issue to us. We think that it probably will help to activate the streets and quite frankly, that is the most important concern that i have about union square is activating streets and providing more security. And i think they would do that. So before stopping the presentation, i want to say that we would pull the d. R. On 152. So now i would like to talk about the presentation relative to the conditional use application. I have been involved in Retail Real Estate around union square for over 25 years, having invested and developed 10 buildings. I have also been involved in retail around the country. And i want to tell you that what were seeing right now is not a cycle change. Its a structural change, and i am sure you are aware and seen the retailers and the retailers are shrinking the footprint and it is not the Large Department stores but even tenants that used to be 5,000 feet are shrinking to 1,000 feet and trying to deal with how to market the goods online and cross market both aspects. It has had a very structural change and quite frankly t vacancy rate at union square is the lowest that i have seen in 25 excuse me t highest in 25 years of business in union square. This there is, as we all know, a lot of vacancies that are happening. Barneys is going to close, forever 21 is closing, Williams Sonoma and the multifloor retailers are going out of business and those are the only ones that can occupy the upper floors. They are just not there. We have been marketing 146 geary for four years and talking to tenants initially to take the entire building because that works the best for us. That is what was there. We said somebody take three floors, two floors, one floor, and we havent found a single tenant that we can get to take that building. So were concerned, as i said before, about that space remaining vacant on the upper floors because we want to activate maiden lane and provide more shoppers for the existing retailers and more security and bodies on the street to encourage more customers to come to union square. I would answer any other questions you might have and appreciate your consideration. Okay. Thank you very much. We will take Public Comment on this item. Good evening, planning commissioners. I am karen flood, the executive director of the union square Business Improvement district and we are here to speak in favor of the project, 146 geary. The project sponsor did come before one of the Board Committees to present the project and it was received very favorably from that committee. As mark mentioned, retail is really changing and of course, union square is a shopping district, but peoples habits are changing and shopping online and the Big Shopping Centers are not coming to union center and there is less, less demand for retail. They are certainly not going to the upper floors. What we would like to see in union square is the spaces are filled whether its office that bring tenants and people that will come and shop in our shops and eat in our restaurants and frequent our businesses. That is what is really most important to us. And as a side note with regard to the chronicle article this morning, with regard to the luxury zone, it is something that the Business Improvement district came up with. It is not sanctioned by the city. We look at union square and within the 30 blocks, there is some different areas. Value retail on powell. More Luxury Retail on grant and geary. And we came up with the full cannabis policy about what are the criteria we evaluate with Cannabis Retailers at union square including security and how responsible the operator is including how much theyre going to sprord the b. I. D. And what we are trying to do down there and that support and whether or not they can contribute positively to the block and to the area and whether they are received by the stakeholders on the block. And if there are multiple residents that are opposed, were going to back those residents. With regard to this, we are strongly in support. We hope it will move forward and not be delayed. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. The value of sue hester. The value that is being create bid your motion is going to go to the land ward. And they have to have an obligation to light the streets. Planning Department Staff doesnt pay full attention to this issue, and the plans have to require they honor to maintain lighting permanently. Two speakers before me spoke about the high level of va can sis. Whenever there is a vacancy, the street gets dark because there is no lights coming onto the street from the retail establishment, which is why the obligation cant be put on the retailer establishment and has to be done permanently and looking at a quadrant leader to tell the planners you have to do this. You have to go over the plans for the building. You are creating value for the Building Owner. The Building Owner has to maintain lighting permanently on the street to make it safe, to make it more attractive to rent out the space. We are creating dead zones unintentionally on ground floors. We cant do that. Thats your job. That is a planning commissions job. You have the conditional use before you. You have to add a conditional use exhibit b requirement that there be adequate lighting on the street. And people need to Pay Attention to it at the planning staff level. Really. Im tired of trying to review plans to see what the level of lighting is. Its not good in downtown area. Thank you. Thank you very much, ms. Hester. Any other Public Comment on this item . Hello. Charmin spector, legacy business in downtown san francisco, as previous owners of 146 geary, i would like to lend support to the the project to have office space on the upper floors. I feel that it would be more beneficial to have more people at least in the area and we have experienced a radical shift in the retail momentum and i do hope that it will swing back, but a lot of that has to do with having people as a Critical Force down there to try to encourage more businesses to come down to downtown and not be so stepped back from it. We really have created a vacuum in the last two years. Its been devastating. And there must be a way with the help of the bid and the help of the landlords to try to make it the Shopping Center and destination that it always has been and deserves to be for our lovely small city. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Hello, commissioners. Richard lee from crushman wakefield. I am a stakeholder in union square. I am a member of the union square b. I. D. Whom you heard from ms. Flood. Mr. Steffen has a strong point and talks about upper floor vacancies and retail users. I actually oversee the property on post street where the former gumps is and i am the owner and gumps december 31, 2018 after filing bankruptcy. After 150 years on post street. That is a long time. So regardless, they vacated and left a large hole in the middle of post street. And that happens to be right next door to the new britex store, so if it were not for the top two floors of being an office building, that building would be completely dark. There is only lights on two floors. Thankfully for the upper floor tenants. Now, if you are walking down post street, you will understand what i mean. Its n