consensus. they were closer. in my mind, and between the supervisor's office and her efforts, the fact that, differently than the first two appearances, the opposition is not here today. the manner in which that has been handled, sending it back twice, is not something we like to do and keep it on our calendar. in this case, i thinksit worked andç the department did an excellent job. commissioner sugaya: staff, i have a quick question. this is kind of a dumb question. are we in control of the number of outdoor seats? >> no. commissioner sugaya: çwho controls that? >> the department of public works. çcommissioner sugaya: i would like to identify that the plans we have in front of us have

attention -- showed 10 seats and now it is 16. at one time, it was 24. it just triggers a little problem in my mind as to the depiction we have got here. >> the intent is to show the area where the seating would occur. the number of seats for this particular project are not under the jurisdiction. but i did ask the proper response to include those on the plans because i felt that it was important that the commissioners see the full brunt of work that he was planning on. commissioner sugaya:ç to the project sponsor, can you clarify this strong for me please? -- this drawing for me please? >> in a last-minute addition, to add the tables into the plants, the table sizes were not -- we

thought it would be square or rectangular rather than circle. it is the same footprint on either side, you'll just see additional tables. commissioner sugaya: thank you. commissioner borden: want to thank commissioner miguel and staff as well as the product sponsor for doing outreach and having another meeting to discuss issues. i never had an issue with this business. i actually love mission local eatery. it is a great restaurant in the neighborhood. u.s. showingçç you have a pron track record of doing a quality business. my issue was that we told the project sponsored to do outreach and make sure they meet with their neighbors. i'm notç saying that your prodt has to be different because they wanted to be different, but it has to be respectfulç and make sure that you have consulted with those people who are going to be most impacted in by the project. i want to thank the project

sponsor for following the direction and doing so, i want to thank staff and commissioner miguel for being part of that. the message here is we canxd hae a lot of great things happen in the neighborhood of san francisco. i think it will be a nice attribute. and if you do what you have done elsewhere with yourç concept, e neighborhood will be much better for it. commissioner moore: i would like to add to what commissioner borden said. the power of pushing it back to the community is phenomenal. that has been good. we do not like conflict or solving conflicts. we like you to work it out yourself. i would like to thank the commission for sending it back twice. normally it takes a lot of time to hear public comment. sending it back twice, i think it worked out. thank you to the staff and the

commission and i move that we approve. commissioner antonini: çi was going to make a motion that has already been made. president miguel: the other thing i would like to mention, and perhaps commissioner sugaya would agree, although this is not a landmark building, it is a historic resource. it is being handled in that manner, which i think is very appropriate. xd>> the motion on the floor is for approval as currently proposed. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. you are now on item number 10. 1921 vallejo st. q

of this hearing, the d.r. requester has requested continuance of this item. i believe the d.r. requester is here. the matter before you is whether you want to continued the -- consider the continuance and then hear the case or -- but the d.r. requester is here. president miguel: there has been a request of continuous from the d.r. requester. not agree to buy the product sponsor. commissioner moore: could we both ask in both parties to make a brief statement? what is theç case? what is the reason? president miguel: the d.r. requester is present. if they could make a statement as to why they wish this hearing

postponed. çcommissioner moore: come to te podium please. president miguel: two minutes each. >> i do not wish it to be closed on anymore. i did at that time. president miguel: that is all i need to hear. very good. good. >> good afternoon. i am from the department of staff 3 before i begin my presentation, i would like to bring to your attention a necessary correction in the plans for this project which the department was advised of yesterday. the projojoject sponsorç has sf plans which i will pass out. >> the plans, as submitted, show the existing extension of the rear of the building by 5.4

inches deep by 8.10 inches wide. the corrected the matches are as follows. the corrected extension measures for foot 10 inches wide and the additional feature isç 7 feet 10 inches wide. as a result, the addition is 16 inches narrower than depicted in the original plans. i have copies that are being passed out. the project is a one story horizontal addition, approximatelyxd 5 foot 4 inches by 7 feet. it is located between the western property line. the existing extension is 7 feet 10 inches tall at itsñr lowestç

point and 11 feet, 8 inches tall at its highest point. the addition, like t building's existing rear extension, would extend into the properties required for rear yard and have variances granted to allow theu! project o proceed. pursuant to planning code section 136.225, a 12-foot construction could be constructed into the rear yard from side property line to side propertyçç line as long as its height is limitedñr to 10 feet. it is that proportion of the proposed addition that exceeds 10 feet in height that requires the variances. çtheç subject property is a fr story garage on a 23 foot by 108 foot deep lot on the south side ofçó vallejo st.

the adjacent property to the west is a four story overwrought to unit building. çand the other property is a four-story, over garage, single- family house. they hold the line with modest one or two-story extensions into their rear yards. the property owners of 1919 vallejo street support the project. the d.r. requester is the owner of 1923 vallejo street, the building immediately west of this property. his concerns include the products dependence on a variant being granted, the project's potential blockage of sunlight to his property, the project's potential impact to his privacy, and the anticipation that the project sponsor would

seek to space and expanded bedroom onto the roof of the building in the future. the d.r. requester suggests that if the commission should approve the project, that the addition should beñr set back from the shared property line, reduced in height, and conditions to forbid any future additions. the residential design team viewed the project and founded to meet the standards of the residential design guidelines and the project would not result in any other impacts to neighboring properties, including the d.r. requestersw3 property. it is staff recommendation to approve the project as revised. i am available for any questions. president miguel: çóthank you. the d.r. requester. >> good evening, commissioners. i do not have the detailed

analysis. i]it does not mention a lot of e things we have spoken about. in any case, this is a small project, especially compared to some of the items on today's this project should not and cannot be approved because it does not comply with the planning code and the design guidelines. the design guidelines say, on page 4, that all residential permit applications must comply with the planning code. this complete project is a variance. çthe planning code has to be in the scope of considerations and so are the design guidelines. çi disagree with the sponsor tt section 311 is along with the

guidelines. secondly, according to page 16, there is talk about light and saying that dense building patterns, some reduction of light to the neighboring buildings. how do we defineç some? it is my opinion that buildings that complotç -- must comply wh the code. not products that do not comply. right next to it,ç on page 16, there is planning code section 101,ç sein the planning code wl provide adequate light for the convenience of access. the sponsor has submitted some solar studies thatçó are not correct. i live there and know how much

light comes there. çthis concert study shows a sml window. there is no small window. there are huge doors that i cannot even find replacements for. they cover the whole wall. during the winter and summer, does that mean there are only two seasons in the year? they have not given us anything for spring or fall. it affects sunlight in the morning. morning is the onlyko time you t son. during the day, you do not get any son anyways. it is not relevant. it is not affecting some bathroom orç something, but the çkitchen and the family room, areas that i use most of the time. it is not some reduction of light, it is a major reduction

of light. morning time is the only time anybody is home these days. you go to work and you come back late at night. xdso the project -- it is a back door entry of getting the project approved. it does not comply with the code. where does the option of variants come in? çeven on page 16, it clearly says, "particularly the building to the impact of light." this plan can be modified to minimize the impact of light. çtoday there are not any

significantç concerns, but tomorrow, once the product is approved and variances are granted,ç the owner of the property can easily build a second floor. çi]and affect the whole privacf the area. < it is referring to dense building patterns. çif youw3 consider that san francisco, as a city, our neighborhoodsç are dense. that would not apply there. i have more timeç if a rebuttal is required. president miguel: çthank you. speakers in favor of the d.r. requester?

you will be called back for a rebuttal. speakers in favor of the d.r. requester? if not, project sponsor. >> midafternoon, president miguel and members of the commission. çi am helping the project sponsor on this one. dr. marion peters is the project sponsor and she is here. he it -- she is available to answer questions if you would like. we have a couple of letters from the neighborhood and we could have gotten everybody in the neighborhood to support this project and oppose this discretionary request. theç -- throughout the papers, they call it a pop out. it should be called a felon. it is kind of a notched their if

you take a look at what they're doing. they are really filling in from the interior a not very workable kitchen. i do want to show you a photograph that will tell the story. i think you may have seen this. çógood. if you take a look right here, this is the piece that is xdgetting filled in to the backf the wall and across here. if you take a lookt( at this fence, that fence is about a six-foot fence. we have a right to put a 10-foot fence in there. q we took the opportunity to put up a 10-foot fence. it truly is much ado about nothing. here isç a that is the plan we just showed you that shows where we are filling in this notch. if you take a look, if you were in the backyard and went down

the block, every other property has that not filled in for the same reason. çódramatically, from the inside, it did not work. let's see what else i want to tell you. we corrected the d.e.m. mentions, i told you about the fence. if you have questions, let us know. president miguel: anyç speakers in favor of the product sponsor? q two minutes for a rebuttal. >> i do not have access to any of the documents that were submitted today or amended. i could barely read it. there is a reference to a 10- foot fence. we do not have a 10-foot fence at the moment. if there was a 10-foot fence, i

would not be opposing it. if the planning code allows for i would not waste your time or my time if legally, this project could be built. the planning code does not allow for it. the design guidelines are undercut it. ç-- are undercutted. amend the guidelines and anyone who has such a project would be able to build it. as it stands today, this project should not be approved. president miguel:ç thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i just want to defend the architect studies that are in the back of our sub middle. they are accurate. thank you. commissioner moore: i just wanted to point out that the

required change in the kitchen is an improvement to the layout of the house. i do believe that there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about what we are asked to look at. ixd appreciate that the d.r. requester implies that there is a code or rule violation, but i do not see it that way. is there anything in the code which we are not seeing? the design guidelines clearly speak to a modest cop out -- pop i]out. >> arguably, there are two code issues. the first is residential design guidelines adopted in the planning code under section 311. t(the department reviewed this d found that it complies with the design guidelines. the second issue is that of the rear yard. there is a rear yard variants

for a very small portion of the structure. while they are allowed a 12-foot obstruction intot( the required rear yard, that is limited to 10 feet in height when itç goes to the property line. this is 11 feet, 8 inches. it is consistent with that of the structure that is already there. carrying over that existing roof line. we did have a hearing at the end of october on this. the d.r. was required subsequent to that hearing. we wanted to bring it back to the commission for your consideration. the roof is impractical given the existing building conditions, where you have the upper level that comes out. this was the best solution for it is a very minor variants from the code. wv? i appreciate that interpretation. you'd probably get quite a few

people into this building because it would change the architectural expression and you would not look for a flat roof. you would do exactly what you are doing. i am in full support of how you explain it. i make a motion that we do not take the art and approve the product as it is. commissioner sugaya: this is not anything fort( or against the project, but it is another pet peeve of mine. on the drawings that were submitted, especially ao.01, we have a vicinity map that has vallejo street horning to the top. -- pointing to the top. when we get to the site plan, there isxd no aero and it is reversed from the vicinity matt. -- there is noç arrow and is reversed from the vicinity map.

it would be nice for some consistency. an arrow on the site map would be nice as well. commissioner antonini: looking at the picture we have, it showsç broadway with large apartment buildings to the south ofç this, i think that north arrow, in my estimation, would be facing in the west direction. that is another reason much of the light is cut off to the backs of these yards by those larger apartment buildings already. i cannot really see where this would have much of an impact. there are quite a few other pop outs that are similar to this one in the adjacent houses. commissioner moore: i want to thank commissioner sugaya. these are the working drawings

and the sections of the decaling do not belong. i would rather have this pared ç back to the essentialç drawings with the north arrow pointing in the right direction so that we can understand the direction of sunlightç and whatever, including adjacent buildings. enough said. i do thank you for that, commissioner sugaya. president miguel: çi fully agr. sometimes we getç is more akino dbi. >> the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. çcommissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president miguel: aye.

>> the building does feature a garage. it is a historic resource and there are similar features on the block, a south-facing closure. there are temporary buildings that already cast a significant shadow much more than the profit would. minimal expansion. that said, i would add the condition that there be no roof deck on theç subsequent structure. noting that that is unlikely to happen anyway given that it is not a level surface. but we would add that condition anyway. that is all. thank you. president miguel: we are going to take a 10 minute break before thee ç>>ç ok, the planning commissn is back in session. we are about to hear itemsç 11

and 12 on your calendar. çsupervisor avalos has given a memo to the commission that he would like read into the record. >> this is from john avalosççó, supervisor for district 11, dated february 16th of thisç year, to the planning commission. "thank you for the opportunity to address you on a number of items related to medical cannabis dispensaryç permitsae. although you are considering three separate itemsçxd, i woud like to address these together. i am supportive of patient access to medical cannabis and have supportedç the city of san francisco's approach to regulating mcd's.

i expect these dispensaries to meet otherq approval that the commission can and should oblige. locations on our neighborhood commercial corridor and their proximity to commercial uses, it is important that the conditions for the issuance of operating permits for all of these facilities include adequate inappropriate lighting -- adequate and appropriate lighting. safety and security of the block. esthetic appeal by adding greenery and maintaining clean, graffiti- free, well-paintedç facades. i don't feel it would be appropriate for on-site smoking or consumption. in addition to these considerations, i hope that they

would employ local residents and were closely with neighbors to address any concerns. i would like the pilot is to accommodate other conditions within reason as called for by the community. like all businesses, i expect that all mcd's would work closely to address any concerns as well as maintaining an open relationship in order to insure greed upon conditions. çthe residence merchants association agency has been working hard to approve the commercial corridor over the past few years. we have seen gradual improvements such as improved cleanliness and aesthetic appeal. a healthy commercial corridor includes a balance of uses. okçxdi am greatly concerned win oversaturation of this type of service with applications for

two dispensaries on the same block at 3 dispensaries within 1.2 miles of each other. we have not even had an mcd in this part of town. thank you for your support of these issues and i look forward to a collaborative process where we can accommodate the needs for access to medical cannabis as well as safety and security concerns of all of our residents." >> thank you. item number 11, case number 2,011.0682 dd. >> i have been discussing this with the city attorney. this item is being continued a number of s