me to the planning commission for thursday, september 3, 2015, irmd commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioner president fong commissioner wu commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards thank you and we do expect commissioner antonini to arrive latest commissioners first is the items for continuance item one proposed commission interim controls recommended to the mission action plan 2020 is for

continuance for september 10, 2015, but i believe we discussed that to september 24th at this point. >> any public comment on item the one item proposed for continuance not seeing public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards move to continue item one to accepted 24 on that motion to continue item one to september 24th commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places us under the consent calendar for items 2, 3 a and 3 b i do have one speaker cards for

item 2 a mic a ma sell florlz we will is have to place it in others regular calendar. >> items 2 and 3. >> right for the san francisco west side kriejdz environmental impact report okay. we'll have to pull that off of content and put it on the regular calendar that pulls 3 a and b off consent we can't act until the environmental impact report is sound-proofed. >> okay. that's outlook. >> shall we place those we did commissioners on august 6th we committed to items that got continued off of that calendar to be heard first that's why with the discretionary review

items first then is regular calendar and those will apply to the first two items under the regular calendar would you like to take up this after item 12 or 13 and after item 12. >> very good commissioners items 2, 3 ab on the regular calendar after 12 if commissioners, if there's nothing further diminishes matters item 4 for the draft minutes for august 16th and draft minutes for august 13th. >> any public comment on item the drvts not seeing public comment is closed. >> move to approve draft minutes. >> on that - and with only have

one set of minutes that's august 6th that's not 2. >> would you like to continue the august 13th. >> commissioner moore which ones do you have. >> i have august 6th. >> i have august 6th. >> move to approve august 6th drvts. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion then to do you want the minutes for august 6th commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards chiu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero shall we continue august 13th minutes. >> yes. please. oh, i'll need another motion. >> a motion to continue. >> move to continue. >> to september 10th then.

>> correct. >> commissioner moore move to continue. >> okay. >> september 10 second. >> on that motion to continue the drvts for august 13th to september 10th commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards chiu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places us under item six the action items with commissioners this will be the first time you take up this matter with something discuses under your consideration of the rules and regulations and it was determined or recommend we take this up quarterly or on as a needed basis illicit hand out this thank you. >> i have one.

>> commissioners this is a running lists by individual commissioners to either get schedule a hearing a joint hearing informational presentation on any variety of issues on this reformatted version the top darker stated i shaded gray are completed that are several in the milled about a lighter shade of gray we have scheduled hearings to address those issues and there are the bottom sort of just pail white items are the

remaining issues that i think about lend themselves to focus our discussion on today i think it probably will be whoerth in the commissioners that made the request to add them to the action item list to remind the commission as a whole what the request as about and then you guys could either determine this item has been accurately addressed in the past or additional information is needed it is helpful to the department to respond what format is adequate to respond for example, with an individual meeting with the commissioner of a written memo or an informational presentation to the whole commission so i think that both be the appropriate way to go. >> first of all, thank you for

color coding and going through this list and checking off what has been accomplished maybe i'll open up to commissioners, if you don't mind the whites ones on the bottom is there anything we want to remove we have relevance to us anything that rise to great authority. >> i believe in the white boxes originated by myself in april talks about the constitutional master plan origins are something that are rare whether quoted in order to do the process justice and i'm talking genericly to all institutions we'll be well-advised to visit the origins that dates back quite a away the reason why it

was created some of the people that approximately created it have volunteered to fill us in i think this is good for the department to hear it including discussing how the changes of time and technology we might want to start the standard for what is a good mp and when is not i'm familiar with the i mp having practiced across the state of california and other states i think we need to have something to compare apples to apples there is a small institution and larger and different kinds of institutions a companion night life that is better understood by all of us to go back to the origins i urge us to have a revisit of that subject matter. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i think

the only item with my name on that the sfmta joint meeting there are lots of reasons that one needs to be a priority if i had there's lots of things to talk about whether it is a joint hearing or a separate workshops i can attend we're taking up the transportation fee i don't think we have a clear idea of one what is the current phasing for the frapgs project especially in the area we're looking at a lot of growth additional two, how are rethinking overall how to supplement the system with other methods of modes of transportation we're hair about shifting out of cars and have hear about the budget shortages in muni i don't understand how the sfmta is going to do bridge

the gap how are we going to incentivizes better management programs like the other larger projects i think we can take a joint hearing to talk about those issues when they come up in our hearings we're more good frankly, i wish we had been more informed is that enough money where will it go there are many questions to answer i want to see that prioritized in the next few months. >> thank you noted commissioner richards. >> are partly with commissioner johnson on the joint hearing the mta given the folks that have been coming are here if potrero hill basically deliver the people where we need to go and also the transportation the t s

p the money is another good question is that enough money and in terms of the one i'd like to my i have several on her actually more than anybody the compliance is part of the enforcement for telephant in th room half of those are based the rough numbers 26 lots were used for dwelling units and have the gentleman who is the planner on that project give me the rough numbers on the 28 dwelling units if you actually looked ates transported the money if you want to legalize those dwelling units in hundred million dollars

it is something that would potentially the board of supervisors might want to look at as well. >> director ram. >> thank you commissioners it would be helpful for us if and for example, for the 3 items that were discussed if we could talk about how best to respond in terms of the format so for example, commissioner moore on the item on i mp do you see that as a hearing or a memo we talk about the origins i mean what's yours preferred forefront. >> my preferred format is 9 hearing in which we can ask questions and get different interpretations we've i've found myself sittings between different kinds of chairs no feedback on the plans so this might be the moment to clear up the basic queasy questions.

>> commissioner richards. >> for my own in the form of an informational here's what we found and this is approved roughly and business licenses start with a memo. >> i'm assuming it will be a big number i think it is medium for the public. >> just for clarity those are requests by individual commissioner do we get a sense of consensus we're in agreement with the format and the prioritization we're trying to do that today; right? >> commissioner johnson. >> i feel the mta is as informational from staff or an actual joint. >> i'd like to have a joint hearing i want to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but i'll open if this is something that can't happen we're saying the next hearing do

i not dated is a year from now i'm open to a workshop maybe something in person what the other commissioners from mta talk about as well staff and commissioner moore. >> i just actually want to express my support for the sfmta joint meeting there are all kinds of bulletproof questions like the busses i see more and more conflict with the other buses capital o other buses including an incredible challenge by the drooifz habit of some are of uber type i don't know what the adjective for that type of transportation who are basically somewhat not quite in the grove of how to drive in the city so

i'd like to have those bullet points added to our presentation how are we protecting themselves and basically keeping our updates better. >> commissioner wu. >> i am happy to support the sfmta joint hearing or hearing i'd like to ask we have a meeting first maybe commissioner president fong and with the commissioner with the mta board that helps staff in creating the presentation and bring it to the full joint. >> that's a good suggestion commissioner paskin-jordan. >> sorry. >> commissioner richards i think that is the highest point on my list commissioner johnsons i wanted to see where we are this is what we have and the reliability and the state of where we are so we can get an

understanding we're hearing from the public issues but not sure how to quantify those. >> i think jay marshall. >> i apologize many monitor. >> oh, apologize for being late any wife in some outpatient surgery this is a high priorities in regards to this issue i'm supportive of what most of the commissioners are saying informational is good first if under is a convince i want to know and if it merits a joint hearing will be different levels and some things we mark farrell need to know about them and other things interact with the other commissioners in regards to those issues and transportation might not one of those. >> commissioner moore. >> if we could pick up a couple of items commissioner richards and myself and in january over

many years in the past have talked about the broadening of residential guidelines if this is already work in process director ram perhaps you could give us ever so often a summary or whoever and we know the treetops under which those guidelines are being looked at we don't center to bring it up again, it is already in process progress. >> i think in this case i'll have mr. johnson to write a memo there's been a lot of work and guidelines for scale in the last year or so isle so i'll have him do it memo if h that make sense. >> hang on that's helpful for staff to get the prioritization some will take more preparation time and jonas will put there

into the schedule maybe before the end of the year i want to bureau we're limiting opening it up for public comment ms. hester. >> i'm dealing with the item that was on the agenda it is the same i think that guess the same i think where you're going it is good we really important issue that commission needs to know the issues you're talking about commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner richards all came from the commission there were multi year battles to get the t d i f is transformed into the t s f m the rational for the commission doing that and the board of supervisors doing that really needs to be discussed my

understanding of staffing from planning and mta is a really don't have a clue of how to get the transit fee and grandfathering certain projects should be something that is really discussed more than a staffer report two weeks from now with regards to the xhaechld of arts the i mp process started with the agencies because that was very concerned about developers hospitals and post educational institutions disregarding the planning department desire for them to state their intentions to expand and add new people that are served and so he went through 3 years

of hard work at the planning commission and at the board of supervisors i urge you to have at the end the hearing that commissioner johnson was talking about it is a public hearing and what commissioner moore was talking about as a public hearing memos that go back and forth and have no opportunity for the public and the commission to have a dialogue are interesting but they're not educational for the broader public and the people that watch sfgovtv so i think you deserve the time to have a joint meagerly with the mta and to have a real discussion with the planning commission present and supervisor cop that carried the legislation i think your heading

in the right direction i encourage it. >> is there any other public comment. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and vice president and commissioners today is i'm donald a resident in san francisco concerned about the housing crisis i have to say a public interest first of all, i began i hear a. >> sir, i apologize it is public comment as it relates to the action item general public comment will come up shortly after this. >> sorry. >> any other public comment on the actions item list? >> good afternoon. i'm georgia i'm interested in the residential design guidelines

you'll not have a hearing but i've talked with some of the staff it would be we have in the staff that is working on the residential design team could meet with the public 7 or 8 years we had the meeting on the dr or more those were great a quick example of the details sometimes the guidelines get confused oh, on page 11 but their quoting package 23 say the project is maybe in the publics briefs it creates a confusion for you and the public i think that that is the kind of thing that would be talked about from the staff was working on the residential design team or more could reach out to the public but it is important for the

public that is all they really have are the residential design team so from the staff could do outreach there are people that are happy to come in and spend time with staff thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment on the action item list okay public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> i have one more thing on the sfmta joint hearing and something that commissioner johnson said we keep approving projects with parking that is less than the number of units and not understood what the ownership was whether in line with the percentage i think that is interesting an interesting thing to add to the list we hear that all the time and another one commissioner johnson mentioned i worked in private industry we were surveyed on the t d m for the companies

entitlements i'm not sure we understand the projects we approve so a loop envoy those t d ms delivering and that stuff gets recorded bay back to the mta but never reaches us we could add that to the list of mta. >> very good commissioners, i do appreciate the discussion i think that will certainly help staff to respond if i hear correctly there is a consensus on 3 items in particular the history of i mp and a potential joint hearing with sfmta and the compliance enforcement update and a rdt update through either the director's report or a memo. >> excuse me. on the last item

clearly we'll have to have public merging remembers this is a starting want the revised guidelines will need to go through the progressing progress and certainly follow-up merging. >> commissioner antonini. >> not to throw in more stuff one thing i've asked for this in the past the public will appreciate will staff will go through the zoning and independence for the commissioners and for the general public comment by the way, even after many years of the planning commission zoning types changes o change quibble and a lot of them change in the time he did the eastern neighborhoods so a brief refresher on the general categories and what is allowed and allowed would be good for all concerned. >> commissioner richards.

>> today is my one year anniversary on the commission and i think we've come a long way so i hand to the director and the commission for moving on this and the ones on the white we'll prioritized in the future. >> thank you, commissioners there was this was a good decision i apologize. i overruled items 4 and 5 commissioners he questions or comments. >> commissioner richards. >> three weeks is a long time to be away i've been reading a lot and not missed one meeting we have a commission document from meta i know it is on line an interesting read on the terms of the mission in household for children they're trying to tie

the fate of the children to the enhancement to the of the neighborhood so the mission specifically relates to children and how they learn this is a good document what was going around by displacement for another in different neighbors in the bay area there is an interact active map that is associated you can hover our mouse or cursor the chance the displacement it is incredible powerful tool she worked with karen so it is news dot berkley or search for the daytime urban displacement project map on the web an incredible read looking at the future and sunday august 15th china driving the future if we

have driver less vehicles and land use has been tlarltd to meet the cars driven by people and driver less cars that pickup people you have additional space to have for other things and another good read the atlanta monthly in august they talked about the future of work whether or not work is going away the point it being made for planning in a couple of economic cycles we'll have more unemployment because it says how foundationally the work has shaped the coastal cities for the residential spaces both are expensive it makes the buildings unnecessary for the mri yadz

there be into apartments and leaving cities as lively or would we see spreading blight we're talking about 20 o thirty or 40 years but for future planning is a really good read for someone it is online as well a couple of other things in the chronicle it talks about wireless antennas and the public outrage we have to approve a bit i bill in sacramento approve within hundred and 50 days is a good read and mr. mathis will give us a quick brief on that and bare with me three weeks is a lot of reading to do in today's paper john king talked about the danger of having a mono0 cult was is an economic

form the cities need engines chugging uaw and other ones have running low rather than having a point one good point and downtown was the chandler building and lastly i see that apple is running out the program anyone tomorrow for monday an announcement i see parking spaces for $9 a day i wonder how we can get those that was my last item. >> commissioner antonini. >> well over the break i took a trip to pittsburgh sorry i couldn't bring home a giant memoir but it was interesting to see that city they do a lot of good things baseball and football stadiums next to each

other a short walk offender the bridge from downtown and a large arena they have a hocking i didn't team and lots of hospitals and both of those things work very good together it is interesting pittsburgh was ann at one time the second richest city in the united states as far as people are wealthy and 2/3rd's of a million of people now the population is 3 hundred and 10 thousand that maybe up some it was a figure if 2010 you're seeing things better and building being built downtown no pittsburgh but the other thing that is sad when compared to san francisco it is a clean city not garbage all over the place not a single person passed out on the street

i only saw two pages that was walking across the bridge after the giants, picturing rats game they seem to be doing something right it is refreshing to see an area that is able to keep the city clean i did not see all 55 squirrels of pittsburgh it is around san francisco a little bit bigger and i'm sure commissioner richards was from pacific heights and may be able to explain but it was an interesting trip to see especially a city that is lost population has lower low income levels and higher unemployment than san francisco seems to do a better job of jobs challenged. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i'll keep it quick well, from pennsylvania.

>> last week i didn't and i used to work but there is a lot more delipidated areas in pittsburgh and commissioner antonini might not have seen those on the atlanta article fantastic the issue we're not going to have workers by different activities not all residential but people doing other stuff and really quick my one comment i know in the working world you want to get feedback so people can act on that unfortunately, we have not had commissioner questions or comments a two week break and but i noticed a couple of hearings where we've had staff or project sponsor bring information to us that we were shocked by in the hearing he find that i'm going to use the word unacceptable the one

example we were talking about the project nonprofit mission and we find out that the project sponsor had invoked the act in the hearing we didn't know that before it impacted our ability to make a decision about potentially continuing and other operations of other things that's not the first time i praise ours planning staff and directors you guys do great work but i want to take the first opportunity in the questions or comments to find a negative i hope we can north america gate that in the future we were surprised by that fact in the hearing it has happened less shocking manner but with other items as well. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to department matters item 78

directors announcements. >> welcome back commissioners i won't give you details of my travels but i'll give more details in communication commissioner johnson on your last item i agree that item took us by surprise so we need to do a better job of informing you although in case that was issues we needed to work out but while do a better job of getting that information and i'll close my report there in the interest of time when i have more. >> very good commissioners that place us on review the past events of the board of supervisors and the historic preservation commission the board of appeals are on their month break the historic preservation commission did not meet

yesterday and zoning administratorations wanted me to mention that last night one item that maybe of interest that the board heard the appeal of variance and unanimously uphold the decision as they did for the planning commission on the section thirty 9 of that project. >> so commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to general public comment at this point members of the public may address the commission of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i do have one speaker card i believe there was another gentleman that wants to speak. >> okay. thank you.

>> georgia. >> great, thank you. >> sorry about that today, i thought i was on item e before first of all, the timeless vision for a better world for san francisco i believe a broad public education is paramount in our society i truly believe in building a foundation for change for face to face communication harvey milk from the opposition of building more housing everything we hear is an opinion not a fact and everything we see is a prospective and not a truth marcus they lead us to building that youth in family zones prevent gentrification and evictions let's preserve the blight and

community with those mentally ill folks and the jobs are disappearing but pushes away hard cold cash for the services let's preserve a community that pushes away arts and culture for the neighborhoods to enjoy let's build a time machine back to the 1970s with our american directing were going back to the vietnam war that were started by the grants and impeached the president in possessive they say we built all the market rate how do we do that? we need but the housing for the homework state of california sb helped to target approximately, six hundred and 65 units that needed to be built when i 2024. >> only 7 hundred plus unit

have been approved the short form of 20 thousand units what about found across the entire registration it is time to create urban density and reinforce the ownership the push on housing is here for a solid decade san franciscans deserve better i've had a vision for a better world in san francisco thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> hi georgia noah over a year ago you approved that project right near me most of neighbors were happy one of the things with the overhead please do a minimally

visual stair penthouse and i wanted to raise my hand and say can you do a hatch that's innovates protocol so there is from down the hill here it is from right across the street and here it is from up the hill various locations going up the hill i don't know maybe it is minimally visible to me it is not i think that is a public view there of the st. paul's church that is blocked from the street the staff had a dilemma i tried to engage carton you had a hatch look at the design guidelines it is to be visible in the text it says but i could do a hatch or different kind of thing the picture in the design guidelines i don't mean to

complain i'm trying to illustrate this is sloped to be up near the wall it isn't it is just i think some of the problems you know with the design guidelines and certainly that on a single-family home i question whether or not you should have a clear opinionated that is a single-family home 35 hundred square feet maybe better if not on the hill i don't know it is kind of an unfortunate thing on randell street you put a hatch on around that time i've been concerned with the penthouse on the mutilate unit buildings i guess my point is maybe stair hatches so be considered for single-family homes maybe there should be

roof-decks that's another story and that's basically, it thanks a lot have a great day. >> additional public comment? >> hi good afternoon, commissioners nice to be here i'm my name is katherine i'm with the sf behaving a member and what is today tomorrow or a year from now the bottom line build more housing and every time we delay a project what that means the newcomers are going to buy up the old stock and carpet the eviction problem not reduce it we keep hearing they want to preserve the community but most

people are saying they want to keep the newcomers out of the community which i find to be somewhat disturbing i think that is saying that certainly people are not welcoming here and want to keep it only one type of members in the community it is bigoted we need to welcome everyone and open arms to everyone we build more housing and open up the dialogue from the improvement that is logical and reasonable at the same time, we don't want to have a process where people use every single type of formation to stop a project to keep it 40 or 50 years we need to have clean neighborhood that was a clear one that is open and that we

build new buildings newcomers that are coming get those new how's to buy and leave the old stock to preserve the old members for the people living in the neighborhoods for many, many years we can delay delay delay but change is here change is a part of humanity and change is part of the universe we can work with change or work against change and create nightmare thank you. >> sue hester i want to talk about the breakdown i preserve in the notice process i have no idea who in the

department is in favcharge i hay car repaired and i went to the guy i've been going to a couple of times at fourth and bryant last week and i started to talk to him about what was happening because he's in the middle of the central selma and he said was unaware had no idea not gotten a notice that what i know about a notice the people that are given notice are the property owners not the tenants that will losses their business this is a serious problem in the planning code district of has more notice problems than you can shack a stick at the 11 notices that go to tenants and owners are 311

notice and when they start the environmental eir that's it. >> so there's no notice to people on the tenderloin and no notices given to attendan tenane south america's and when the eir came out there was no notice given to the people of the hearing and the people at the hearing should the people commented on the eir i brought this up to the staff person and sarah johnson she would holy hell we thought weed whacking given the list, of course, they'll send a notice and when i talked about to the planner on 75 howard no notices sent out to the people that

commented on the eir and that was different the responses that tells us about a hearing that's it but a legal notice those are the issues don't go out to people that commented on the eir go out to people that commented in writinging writing to the planning department staff two years ago that was considered two old so how are you going to take responsibility for having real notice especially in district 6 which i know has no notice and the other thing i happen to know if you have tenancies in common don't get notices that happens in boo he is triangle thank you. >> any other comment. >> okay general public comment is closed.

commissioners that places you in under our discretionary review calendar. >> sorry commissioner richards. >> a quick comment for the director the issue that ms. hester commented on the irs is that something that happens frequently or - >> commissioner we can certainly find out. >> i appreciate it. >> already are all right. commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further under the discretionary review calendar for the case rhode island street that is a discretionary review an abbreviated discretionary review. >> good afternoon chris with the planning department staff the item before you say a brief discretionary review application filed during the notion for the building permit for the residential remodel and addition the dr was filed by the adjacent

neighbor to the south on rhode island street the project site is located on the west side of rhode island between 18 and mariposa in the potrero hill neighborhood in the middle of the block and measures 25 by a hundred feet in depth in the lot of 25 hundred square feet the lot is up sloping and the street frontage is sloping laurel sloping uphill the project proposal is have a second floor addition for the single-family home and the alteration is an expansion of the first floor and second floor floor up the facade a new front story that wraps around the generated and front scale timely renovations architecturally it will under go the remodel for

the styles for the influences to more contemporary architecture style that under the influences the 40 feet bulk district the surrounding area is composed of single-family homes and two letters in opposition one of which has received this tuesday i've provided to you the dr requester has concerns of the capacity within the neighborhood the proposed sobriety and it's impact to light and air and the overall scale and form the dr requests specific modifications

drs we've reviewed the guidelines and in light of the dr requesters concerns the incapability are neither exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in nature therefore the staff not exercise the discretionary review that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions. >> okay dr requester. >> you have 5 minutes dr requester. >> thank you commission for allowing us to present our case before you today, i'm jerry along with peter who is here in the audience dr the representatives on the street but we're here on

behalf of the quite a few of the neighbors on the block we're recognizing the changes are important and good and needed change without consultation can be con tackle the design was a design that didn't reach out at all to the community and neighborhood and brought forth a design that disrespects the spirit of neighborhood so we're not here as derenters of change but proponent of the san francisco residential guidelines that were spoken earlier of today, we find important the guidelines intentions to embrace the common rhythms and co-he has expression in the city that is piling what we're trying to get at

we've articulated a number of concerns in the dr bus the ones i wanted to talk about today are not the ones is effect us is the light and air but rather that effect the whole neighborhood it is quite rachet to see a neighborhood come together with 6 neighbors on the street of rhode island coming together and discussing and work through this issue one the biggest concerns in the front the massing extends sixth further towards the sidewalk than the third floor massing on the street for the fit we'll have a protrusion on the sidewalk that is looming other houses have been careful to respect that secondly, in the back a whiff mid block open

space all the neighbors from this residential angina were rapture to keeping it to a single story the light and air and birds will have unobstructed open space this is important in the design guidelines my uncle charles campbell has been living in the house on 554 rhode island since the 1950s charley campbell was a great demonstration felt spirit of san francisco he was a lover of traditionally san francisco jazz music as well as one of the key people supporting the arts in the bay area with his gallery in north beach in coastline many changes before about i think he embraced the

changes that came about not always happy but recognizing the change was unvifbl i raise that i've been coming to see my uncle since the 70s i've been aware of the changes on the city block the gentleman that submitted the discretionary review his mother married my uncle in the 80s together we've had the wonderful experience of seeing a community where the unique style has been preserved a mix between vic terrain homes and others homes there is no development over the 50 years that really disturbed the style we've found there so or neglectly the sponsor has approached us very much from the

area of having a plaza the only to do do maximum to it we feel their approach is a one up man'sship they're to maximum that plot but doing so at the expense of the neighborhood we've actually engaged trying to found a solution is demonstrate their willingness to understand the neighborhood in it's nature we hope you'll take a strong lethal and perhaps change that we love living on potrero hill and will continue to work with our neighbors to make it a peaceful and lovely communities. >> thank you. any speakers in support of dr requester?

>> commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm henry a brrld and developer you've worked with our of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a over the last years this project is submitted as a greenhouse i think that staff record erred in their haste to approve that first of all, staff allowed the serials on the third floor to block the neighbors legally installed side window that goes go the good neighbor policies of the design guidelines then this project was to qualify is getting a large amount of the exterior leaving only two-by-fours in place to give the impression it's not a demolition if this was a new building the front setback would

so to average the adjacent houses pushing that call back making a good transition between the existing buildings by saving those worthy also walls they've gained a square feet that violates the setback and create a house hundred and 50 percent as large as any on the block and with that space proud they didn't provide an additional handout when the 0 code is manipulated you have a building that didn't respect the adjacent neighbors like the building on vermont street the sponsors offer up as precedent. >> i'm sure he can see that arrest this was just a cottage like the houses left and right of it now a giant soar thump

looking like a building that cheated the planning code like this one how can staff approve this they'll not allow a neighbor 25 feet away to change the front door of their architecturally house please send this project back to staff and make it the trickle building between those fine victorian. >> good afternoon me and my wife are two doors up we believe that the proposed building at 448 doesn't respect the character of the block and meet the

residential guidelines the guidelines strong expectation that has the renovation compatibility it is disruptive and it is - two basic designs to find the historic visible character of the rhode island block those first two pictures i hope you'll be able to see demonstrate the two separate roads of 5 victorians each with simple common design they create a open space for pedestrians you can see from the street and a shared amount of space in the

backyard. >> those are mid century homes with a single story contrary this didn't have a mixed character it is critical to the feel feel neighborhood it is directly to the victorians of the south and the new century buildings in the north the sponsor should make sure to propose the new building represent a traditionally design with - we request the planning commission require the 12 and a half setback of the entire proposed building or a 15 feet setback for the new are third floor addition and two to reduce the rear bumper houses on and 577 rhode island street that is

single story in the morning 5 feet and third to lower the height of the building by 18 to 24 inches to tolerant the victorians to the south and the two houses to the north thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is a libby silverman i'm speaking on behalf of myself and my his david silverman we've lived on rhode island street for 26 years during that time we've come to realize and appreciate the appeal of the block that is the rear balance and harmony among the homes the proposal for 548 percent rhode island especially because

of it's located in the center of that block druchz the unity among those residents this afternoon you've heard arguments demonstrating the need for changes of the design for 448 rhode island street we've been told this project meets code and that this should be the final plan and we've seen is contrary to the codes requirements were not followed that's been stated the design is out of character with the nearby structures what impressed e impresses me when the expression are more compelling clearly demonstrating the home is much greater than than this part it is particularly relevant to the home on 554 rhode island street where the impact it felt the most the walking in the

neighborhood loyalty and othe amenities and it is uncaring and requires a change in design the commission calls for you to preserve our unique heritage and courage a broad range of how's this is the trick juggling act you have especially right now during it this period of the san francisco's history it requires our assessment and judgment while balancing competing needs more importantly, this sets a precedence for development in the future there's a higher principle and has to do with the concept that is to the letter of the code and regulation can destroy it's intent living up to the spirit

breaths life both it i respectfully ask the excision to take into consideration during its deliberations thank you. >> are there any other speakers in support of dr requester okay. seeing none project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and is commissioners this is chris we're the project sponsors is request discretionary review cites four concerns the amount of demolition and the typography

and light and air the project fits within the requirements of the quoted and the project spent a considerable amount of time to address the concerns to no avail the proposed design take into consideration the niece of the neighborhood while meeting the goals the demolition of the proposed project as illustrated on sheets 8.3 are under the limit that has been reviewed and confirmed by might want members of the staff the scale and design fits controvertible within the block of the neighborhood the scale of the proposed project bridges the gap distinct 9 large environmental impact torn and those to the north the planning code indemnification seize the uphill the dr requester 33 feet 11 our proposed project is 32 to

the curb of the do you only hill is 33 and the ground level maintenance the footprint as the existing building the proposed sidewalk is the width that is required by dpw do mitigate the slope by the dr requesters driveway the proposed design is modern with a mix of roofeding and acts as a imply aluminum complimenting all the other aesthetic features of the neighborhood topography and sublts the topography and respectfully steps back minimizing the impact on the neighborhoods loyalty at the front of the building the first floor and second floor fit within the envelope carving away the existing stair tower on the southern side carving away the tower rechlz the building mass to the leadership of the dr

requesters house the third floor addition is pulled back by 12 foot plus beyond the neighborhoods upper floor setbacks the rear the building utilities the planning code section that allows for a 12 feet go the rear yard open space at a 5 foot sblts the imposed portion of the building extends 8.6 and allows the others 3.6 by an open exterior stair and it is held up .6 with the stair of the allowable building area life enrichment committee the dr requesters property if the south side of the prototype project site at no times between the dr requesters house the existing let that is proposed to be removed serves

only the existing project building the neighborhood did not have a matching lightwell or windows that open the removal of that lightwell will have not effect on the dr requesters home the primer light and air for the the east facing windows at the front of the house the windows in question are property line windows the proposed the dine property line is not protected go according to the planning code. >> the dr requesters bathroom has access to light and air to both the window that is closer to the property line and a skylight which will not be effects by the proposed project in closing we feel that the project fits well within the context and conforms to the project design guidelines we request the commission not take

dr and approve the project as designed we feel the proposed design does not propose any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances thank you for your time. >> any questions. >> we may open up to speakers in support of project (calling names). >> good afternoon. my name is a jessie i've been a homeownership in potrero hill for the past seven years and i'm here to voice my support for the proposed project on rhode island street i feel this project will be a valuable addition to the neighborhood and i see the thought if heness and care to the design of this building potrero hill is an architecturally place it is a vast asia diverse modern homes

in the area at either ends of the block on rhode island street the general language and materiality of the proposed design clearly fits in with not only the immediate neighbors with their wood and stucco but 548 rhode island is a building between at victorian buildings to the south and stucco buildings to the house the victorians to the south are large and setback from the street to help to mitigate their mass and the stucco homes to the north are closer to the street i feel the design of rhode island helps to gracely transition between the buildings and the proposed massing the building into from the street and additional it appears the enclosed stair tower this

coupled with the escaping features makes this friendly to the street and neighborhood our neighborhood and city need more example of thought if he buildings like this proposed project i urge you to approve this building as designed thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you members of the planning commission i'm josh i'm a long term residents and real estate professional in san francisco i have no financial interest in that property swhaefrp i have years of experience working in real estate and what the families need and buyers are looking for we're all aware of the shortage of how's and what needs to be done in the city the project sponsor at 548 rhode island are taking essentially an

uninhabitable single-family home and expanding to accommodate the needs of family and given the shortage of housing every level is absolutely necessary and i'm in full support of project one thing i think this is note worthy the extent to the buildings are going forward with the green building you know affording a project that is taking the time and effort and spending the money to make something sustainable is a mistake i think up to me all developers should follow this model and i'm total in support of the project i think the city should encourage buildings like this thank you. >> any other speakers in support of the project sponsor okay dr requester a two minute

rebuttal. >> good afternoon. thank you for hearing us and i'm not letting us go through all the way through midnight like a month ago really quickly that was to justify the project the neighbors uphill two of them at least two of them did remodeling projects it took them many, many months to get approvals for additions this project really is rushed through by staff preliminary because of the sunseting it is the massing that is totally out of change we didn't receive the 311 notice we

reached 80 out to the developer in an attempt to obtain some sort of a reasonable compromise the applicant agreed to minor changes we were given a deadline of 3 days in which to remove the dr okay or move forward as existing and really all of us felt that was totally he would say over our heads 554 rhode island will be blocked out by the development in the front yard and see i'm curious if this exact project were currently on the table for the proposed for the property directly downhill and to the north of 548 what the reactions would be to the developers in trying to get this development through so it is not meeting a lot of the residential

design standards you guys have adapted in the past thank you. >> okay project sponsor you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> that's correct very much we have in fact, been in touch with the neighbors from well before the dr was filed speak a little bit louder. >> we've been in touch with the neighbors well before it was filed you may be see from any response to the dr we have lengthy sort of back and forth we made substantial offers to try to remove the dr and they've offered absolutely no compromises it's been difficult for us as far as you know as far as light and privacy we're in the

backyard as you can see on the image we're pulling this rear wall it is 1/3rd across the property so that's substantially farther than required by the code and as well and again, we have tried to go everything we could in terms of any sort of deadlines like actually it is inadequate we the this negotiation over many months in the spirit of trying to find a decision to move forward we said this isn't working thank you for your time and consideration. >> the public comment is closed. and openly up to commissioner antonini. >> thank you i will agree with the project

sponsor i i don't feel this project as hi significant impacts as far as light and air i think the massing is appropriate 554 i believe looking at our pictures still is higher than 548 after the addition and to the south therefore it should not have impacts for life enrichment committee fmoreover, i'm sympathetic to the neighborhood as far as the design we've been told owe staff things built if 2015 should look like they're built in 2015 i'm not sure i agree but if this is the case something built in 1937 should look like that so i don't quite know we have to completely change the vera last year of the

particular house in order to build another floor i know the family needs a larger structure and different floor plan inside the house as far as the style i don't know why we couldn't put an additional on it and keep the same appearance of the outside as was the case when it was builds i'm not sure that is enough to vote against it i don't know if it is enough to take dr but i do have some concerns about that kind of thing being a homeownership in san francisco and living in a neighborhood we have at least some similarity between many of the homes i'd be pretty upset if someone tore down a house and where the other structures are from the early 1940s and 50 that's myer personal feeling the

edition meets the standards as far as the height and solace. >> sxhoshs. >> thanks very much i'm glad we're doing this now midnight or wherever that was i don't know if they made the strong point just a couple of things the first thing i have a problem with the contemporary design the massing the building itself fits sort of modern sort of meditates for the single-family home so overhead there overall not an issue this looks like a demolition there is if you looked at the overlay that is provided in the planning documents of the old building the one that is currently there versus what was planned there is little that is left i'm asking staff for a response right now

on who what was the assistance given to the project sponsor or the advice on the type of approval to be as you can tell we certainly look at demolitions district 5 if we approve the end results. >> yeah. my response you you know the demolition threshold and the planning codes are not necessarily intuitive they're specific and dearrived in the planning code 217 and two separate threshold each are two subsets but it is intuitive and detailed review to verify it's not a demo we asked the project sponsor to provide the illustration in accordance with the didamatic you i'm aware

generally speaking of those issues. >> i mean as private partners we share the understanding so with regards to residential demolition as the code those are alteration with the building not the removal of 50 percent of the rear and front facade and 64 percent of the exterior walls that's measured in the feet of the foundation level that's one way in which it could be demolitions the other method a major alteration to roam more than 50 percent of the envelope elements it is specifically defines and more than 50 percent

of the housing element it is specifically designed and the actual surface area each has this embedded and embedded in the thresholds to constitute demolition. >> so being aware of that i know the second definition i'm not sure if this is internal changes to say this is the higher square footage of the building but look at the calculations of the first definition i see way more than 50 percent of the facade and this side facade and the side walls if you count them adding in red on the plans so i'm sort of questioning whether or not this is still the original building i think that that does impact how i view the plan and how i view the residential team advise in terms of some of the changes

they've presented if this is a demolition 3 is absence different your alternating the structure that is there so i guess i'll leave it i don't want to take up more time i'm uncomfortable with the decisions. >> commissioner johnson if i may mr. towns said the embedded definitions caused the communication for the question you asked it is an and situation they meet the exterior definition of 60 percent more than the 50 percent maximum so the exterior walls is 40 percent so i think that is if you look like it it looks like a definition doesn't meet both threshold that end criteria puts

oath those projects if you look at the threshold. >> commissioner moore. >> i assume we're discussing the project i'd like to add that we have a other projects on hill side that were presented as demolitions the commission rightfully raised the questions this looks like a demolition we can name the project, however, when our enlarging and adding a floor by the mere fact you have 0 beef up the entire treasure is not just in the back there it is more at an me out to a demolition than we're admitting the replacements of an old structure unveils problem that can't be assessed going to do the structure and that is when the urban expected happens

i want to comment on the project and ask you a particular question the project is a single-family home in rh2 district; correct? i'm concerned that we are enlarging the single-family home to the extent we're everywhere else courageously to prevailing zoning our 2 rh3 and adding hundred and 25 percent of additional space you're adding 3 full bathrooms with 3 full tubs and we're tilting the scale in a manner given our problems here today we think we need to stick tithe to the prevaifl zoning it

is a enlargement but over 3 thousand square feet there has to be a consolation i have to say that this is what is keeping me from looking at the design the questions raise by the rest of the commissioner weigh heavy for me oh, not just make it a bigger home. >> i understand that's a very, very good question i think that is a broader policy discussion in terms of how we encourage the maximum zoning those are single-family homes and two single-family homes and structures that are larger he think i feel from the commission feels that is a extraordinary circumstance you'll want to take

dr that's within your purify. >> in a situation where the building almost resembles the demolition i believe we need to face the walls of discussion because that is what we have to do this is no, not a simple remodel but a significant rebuild and the policy decision comes to the forefront. >> commissioner hillis. >> soy agree on some of the larger policies issues maybe we add some to the larger list and was brought up i've seen in any neighborhoods that are called remodels sort of remodels but look like demolitions i have a hard time if we call this one out but a broader

discussion and add that to the list to discuss what is a demolition and also would hope to encourage people with the additional units if you add more units to the project that will be bigger and have more of age impact on the neighborhood like sfamentsdz single-family homes i have a question for the architect from the battery discussion of changes to lower it 15 feet and are we seeing those in the plans or are those necessarily 15 inches were those made and can you talk about those not in the plans. >> none the consensuss are in the plans we offered lower the

overall height by 18 or 15 inches somewhere in that range depending on the pointed the other thing we offered removal or some sort of alternative to the parapet which stand up against the north facing. >> can you show that on the overhead. >> sure. >> do you have plans there. >> he's getting them sorry. >> so there's a 3.6 parapet right here above my finger. >> what package. >> a-33

can you take a pencil and make the line heavier it is hard to see. >> sure. >> what was the purchase of that parapet. >> it was it is actually not a planning requirement but a building and dbi. >> so you were going to get rid of the parapet. >> or find a skylight it would be a combination might be a skylight or eliminating the skylight or moving it 5 feet away from the april but that lowering the building height were our primer consensuss what

is that - >> one the first discussions from their third floor they have some windows that face north property line windows and as soon as you stand on the third floor you can't see over it if you drop the building 50 inches or so you can see the with these i'll put on the projector. >> that's what i was going to ask if you could put those on thank you. >> so those are north facing and right now our building comes up to right here and the parapet rights at the corner and the parapet extends it is thirty inches beyond that so the consensus we offered losing the patented parapet and lowering the overall building height to let them have northern exposure

over the property. >> the upper window the skylight but the lot line windows have not i mean is that you know non-conforming. >> thank you for that i'll be open for taking the dr and articulating those changes part of the concern is that skylight and so overall i don't think i don't have a huge problem with the design i hear commissioner antonini has said something but things should look like their built today and we have that on the street you go don down the street and different architecture offender the time it was built if those are victorian and or whatever the massing is well done and that setback in the front and part of

the building in the front so, i mean i certainly take the what's on the table from the project sponsor but i generally look at this project. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess one thing to capture commissioner hillis asked to have an item put on the action item list could you repeat that. >> this is come up here and the issues what is a depiction and the definition of demolition. >> how we diesel with the units addition units. >> i'll courage the density she comes pretty much every week and puts up those demolitions commissioner moore is right you open up the walls and take things down because you need to

it is a demolition it sounds like there is uncomfort on the proper density that is an issue you're almost close with the neighbors but choose to come here on august 5th and continued here today, we can make a decision on the 18 inches or you can work with our neighbors with the dr requester or is project sponsor or if you think your that close or you want us to make a decision today. >> from our prospective the consensuss we're totally controvertible with i think we're a little bit more miss aligned now, when we started out with the direct conversation within us and the neighbors but now it is kind of you know after

last weeks meeting i asked to take this off the table it is a loss lost their response now their neighbors up the hill the call your first witnesss only impact the dr requesters property and the neighbors are generally locking landmarking for more consensuss, i.e., dropping the rear store pop out by one story with a one foot setback and a 20 foot sobriety to the property those ruin our project once we realized i don't know if this is where we're at and willing to preserve our views and give you the light those are the things we'll offer

we're somewhat miss aligned we're limiting offering this so i don't see us coming to a resolution on our own quite frankly thank you. >> dr requester. >> thank you. >> we first met with the sponsors with the entire neighborhood that is here today, this is already been a neighborhood concern we agree with the neighbors we're limiting the one p with the direct new york city with the sponsors they offered the lowering the roof as basically this whole compromise if change anything in the design at all it was not a significant compromised that was reducing the floor heights which allowed them to pick up between 15 and 18 inches the roof has solar panels on it as part of the green energy their pro tem by taking away the parapet with

that said, what is more important the entire neighborhood it concerned a number of neighbors were concerned about the design points raised here when we met with them and told them we wanted to going to the neighbors they basically said the offer was off the table in 3 days we didn't have a chance because i was out of the country. >> the offer to lower the building. >> basically that was the offer and the parapet was taken away part of the discretionary review by the planning department so really the one thing their oh, the reduction of 18 inches we prefer not to have that than the adjustments to the setback rather than the reduction of the height 554 rhode island prefers to have the reductions rather

than the reduction in the height. >> so the sblts are well between the code. >> yes. >> i guess where commissioner hillis to take dr and have the building lowered i take a motion to lower the building 18 inches and move the parapet. >> second. >> commissioners there's a motion that has an seconded to take dr and approve the project with modifications to include lore the building 18 inches and removing the parapet and commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson no arrest commissioner moore no. >> commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 with

commissioner johnson and commissioner moore voting against. >> so the commission will go ahead and take a lunch break. >> very good thank you. >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, september 3, 2015, any kind. commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our discretionary review calendar on item 10 at 2414 california street mandatory discretionary review. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission the item before you a application for a a

discretionary review for a medical cannabis dispensary located on california street the project sites within at c-3 downtown office district bulk district and located within the downtown area it is bounded bits california to the south and battley center to the the north that was originally for two dispensaries to operability within the subject property the two dispensaries listed are the first two documented the project has been all the time and the project sponsor seeks to have up to 16 mcds those mcds will occupy the second floor for the significant property replacing a availability office

space the second it to function as a shared conference room up to 16 collectives operating out of the suits it serves as a principle playboy and the activities are administration, product, development and quality control and storage and compliance with the department of public health or dpw it will not be open to the public more onsite direction of medical cannabis all it delivery office of management and budget offsite distribution is permitted and only registered folks on a daily basis products no cannabis plants are onsite and no cannabis no smoking vapor riggs

or medical cannabis eatables will be on site from 8 handsomely to 10:00 p.m. allowed in the planning code the pardon will make full-time security for it inside and outdoor assistance no parking is required the proposed collectives will not be utility listing for pickup and delivery for the record in order to avoid negative parking impacts a delivery truck will hydrologist the inadvertent between 9:00 a.m. a previous discretionary review for the establishment of an mcd was reviewed and approved by the planning commission on 2012 to operate in the rear portion the

subject property and granted the offering for the sale of medical cannabis but under those circumstances no onsite medication this mcd has not opened they've received a new operation to operate the mcd on the ground floor they've conducted a public hearing to review the updated application and dpw recommended approval the medical cannabis act as approved by the board of supervisors and the mayor in 2005 dpw serves as the lead agency and the planning department generated to the location and the characteristics of the mcds planning code section states that mcdonald's mcds are required to be heard by the planning commission whether or not to permit it their principally permitted in the c-3 district 12 letters and with an phone call in support and two

e-mails and one phone call in opposition to the proposed use and 90 one phone call with no position on the project two letters of support and one letter of opposition as well a memo from the project sponsor has been distributed and the department recommendation the department take discretionary review the site is more than one thousand square feet of any school and another active facility and it has bart and muni services it is generally underserved by the mcds and the medical cannabis will only be delivery only no onsite sales of medical cannabis will be permitted onsite no cannabis clantsz a plants cultivated on site and in the policies of the general plan that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions one note for the commission the last package on

the submittal included a floor plan for floor two not including a title block i apologize. i have updated plans with the same floor plan with the title blocks thank you. >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon, commissioners brendon i'm the attorney for the pardon at 212 california street this to the have an approval important the medical cannabis on the second floor on california street it will allow the tenants renting the office space to apply for the mcds permits in the department of public health the suits are to serve as

administrative offices and for dpw inspection not open to the public and no onsite distribution, however, they will quality as mcds that places them under 9 springs of the public health in other words, to quality the project site must be one thousand square feet away from schools and recreation alfalfa's their difficult to locate in san francisco once the process begins the applicant must submit an application to the mayor's office on disability and the planning department the fee is $8,686 non-refundable just to get a planning commission hearing it is 8 to 12 months i've seen up to two years if so the prong is approved the additional time for the build

out and dbi and fire is an additional six months after the inspections are completed the applicant is must schedule a dpw hearing in approved the provisional licenses is done and they'll have to get a final permit this process plies the storefront mbldz that is the same process footing not open to the public after it is issued dpw conducted two inspections and the permit requires an annual renewable from dpw they can cancel for non-compliance with the san francisco medical cannabis dispensary act this difficult and times consuming process has discouraged small

delivery services from objecting permits that leads to an unregulated market in san francisco of which this is approximately 40 praits right now without permits this project was create to have a cost effective pathway to go bring a sufficient number of services and small to midsize collectives under the regulations when it was proposed we heard from the neighbors it was the neighboring nightclubs that wrote the opposition letters we'll have a number of mergers and they've been conducive we worked collaborating with them to provide additional security and hired a community liaison to help with the issues that may arise and develop the operating rules for the tenants that will mitigate any negative impact on the area we've put together the rules to come in and go out and

the camera placement and develop the rules with the neighbors another issue that makes this process the state of california is currently in the process of developing statewide regulatory programs for medical cannabis since the first time it requires all medical cannabis object a local permit this will have the effect of shutting down the delivery services and leaves a avoid in patient activity and will result in black arithmetic, etc. the mcd program to make sure that those in need of medical cannabis has save regulated affordable assess and this will effectively accomplish that goal the regulation insures compliance with employment laws

and payment of all tax thank you for your time and consideration i'm available to answer any questions as our liaison amy. >> i have one public comment speaker card paul richards. >> good afternoon. my name is a paul richard a real estate broker and a project manager working for san francisco we provide management at 244 california street for the ownership on 244 associates the ownership the 244 california streets associates has been on record opposed to the mcd uses for the worker california streets we've met with neighbors and other property owners an additional letters were sent to

you folks i may have said i want to compliment brendon for meeting with us the ownership of our building and a number of neighbor merchant to work on the tenants code of conduct he mentioned that in his presentation we've had conducive face to face meetings the old-fashioned way we've come up with agreements a give and take at the end of the day if you folks approve that second floor of 2 california street we'll ask that the tenants conduct be part of the approval it is in the state of fluctuation but 95 percent complete with our group working together thank you. >> okay. a couple other cards

(calling names) i'm sorry i can't read this. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is david goldman a 42 residents of san francisco and 38 years a medical cannabis i serve ownership on the task force if 2009 to 2011 and from 2008 to 2013 was the presidents of the chapter the nations largest medical cannabis organization currently an president of the democratic club in san francisco i'm here in support of the project as you may know 28 medical cannabis dispensaries that are permitted in san francisco

in the financial district none at the moment the majority of patients according to the university the santa cruz the majority of people use this to replace let's see effects of others as a result, many patients in san francisco who frequent the downtown area does have frequent assess in the east bay and marin but work downtown with the dispensary downtown we give them easy access to their medication can you imagine only one drug store in san francisco what the lines would be for people seeking prescriptions i ask you to support this this is important for the medical cannabis patients for medical assess in the downtown area i know as a patient people like me

that go to dispensaries are fine people snot not going to cause problems for the neighborhoods problems for the neighborhoods >> thank you. next speaker, please.> >> good afternoon, everyone. commissioners i'm michael cohen i'm also a long term residents of the city and i am here today before you to support the permitting of 214 california street i'm an indicator an activist and patient and on the american associate for access and am presently a member of the brownie mary democratic club

unemployment delivery services i feel are risky to our communities and patient the following issues arises with unpermitted delivery serviced there is an inability of law enforcement to verify their operation to the medical cannabis collectives and coaches and a failure inform pay sales and nksz and the fair to maintain proper insurance and compensation and liability also there is the in ability of the department of public health to insure proper labeling and warnings as well as to conduct adequate, background which he knows on the operators and also the inability

of the patient to receive good consumer protection until we see a better permitting system for delivery only dispensaries creating those additional delivery services will be good for the patient and the city this project will allow foyer small collectives and delivery services, research and development groups the opportunity to comply with the san francisco health code and operate legally under the department of public healths supervision the department of public health will be required to issue permits to them and they will be required to follow the regulations the background checks and annual compliance inspections i urge you to support this legislation you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker,

please. >> good afternoon commissioner my name is steve a resident of the san francisco for the past 8 years i'm here today in support of the california street project there is currently a lack of safe and reliable access to medical cannabis in san francisco there are delivery operations that don't have the permission of the city this project goes a long way for the operators to have licenses and with oversight from the health department thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is paula fourth-generation san franciscan my father was as firemen i'm a super bowl 50 as well as small property owner i've go been in the industry for years if so a multi use building that prevents

it into a brick and mortar location after years the location fits all regulations i see that it is the best opportunity to start a collective that helps the patient to get to one brick and mortar location sidewalks with unregulated delivery system no is no good patients don't know where their drugs come from location and opportunities will allow the city to regulate the citizens that helps to get paternity the medication thank you. >> good afternoon members of the board my name is justin a liaison for the medical cannabis dispensary community i've worked for 5 years many this i know

there is a delivery service to patients their lieutenant governor maps from places that are not regulated i believe that having the regulated permit will provide an opportunity for lower-income patients to receive medication on a lower rates the cost of doing business will be impacted and more importantly this will benefit the patient had are home home ridden with people without transportation i think that san francisco has a responsible of responsibility to make sure the patients have a regulated delivery service thank y you. >> hello, i'm nicholas the co-founder and operator of the medical cannabis dispensary

delivery service were the first model that is a different approach from the services i'm president of the san francisco for americans for safe access and prior to that an employee of spark as the director of the outreach for 5 years i think this idea is great it gives us an opportunity to address the issues we've had in san francisco policy as a whole some of the issues like clustering i've sat here and heard other residents with concerns the delivery services are the double parking i've heard the concern and smoking in front of the dispensary their non-issues with this permit and as a delivery service here for san francisco giving us a pathway to be a permitted dispensary is something we want and this is a great opportunity to do that so i hope you guys vote favorably thank you.

>> any additional speakers public comment okay. not seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i like to just bring back to the commissions attention in 2013 on the 12 of september this commission approved the mcd on the ground floor actually mr. allen senior presented the case described a very interesting wellness solution associated with the retail portion as well as the dispensary and the back of the building and it was actually quite inspiring to license to a new product line that was distributed at that point what was in front of us us today not an approval of a new mcd but briefly described as an

upstairs office what has happened unfortunately, we don't have jurisdiction over that it is an assignment in dispensary operator which was apparently proved by the hukt am i correct on that if you wouldn't mind explaining that that was the way it was distributed. >> it's little exact same operators but the corporation was changed because the permit took long but it is on the ground floor. >> together the same obligation the ground floor has access to california street but the front more california restaurant and operation in the back of the

building. >> yeah. adele i didn't moving into the front space andville independent of the operator. >> yes. >> those are facts that are missing in the report what real amazed me looking at the drawings this is by which we're looking at an application i realized that the drawings we received in the package in 2012 which pertains to the operation of the mcd those were fine we approved them the only thing new the drawings of the subdivision of the floor in question, however, it was the same immediately raises my mind to any architect that prepares the plans does put his stylish on it i called him i don't know anything about this and that that was the beginning avenue pro-active discussion anyway it

looked like an incomplete page and in the afternoon i received a message with to sorts of information that processed a new set of drawings were prepared by a new architect dated august 5th that should for all intents and purposes should be part of the page and a update with the mergers with the healthy health department so we're starting with a bunch of confusion that confusion for me, i'm not proposed i'm probable one the most strong itself for mcds in this town there are a certain contradictory project people that spoke in favor of that spoke for the mcd rather than

the floor we're supposed to be deciding on what was not distributed in the staff report there is two times delivery of product in the morning and the evening to this address that is not distributed described in the staff report particularly with the delivery comes pickup how many picks up are we only mailing by mail those are the only questions and what has bothered me i'll be frank about that for the last two years two years almost to the day the building in question has been looked like a about this r building full the graffiti and i've brought that to the departments attention several times and that self-show to mia pro-active lewd towards the releasing and property owners are maintaining their buildings

in downtown including those people who have an entitlement to occupy a space i want to be very honest it's been bothering me rights next to an important part of downtown next a too high ends restaurants right next to schwab in a positive part of california and it sheds light over my life-threateningness to wholeheartedly support it i support it in principle there is too much unanswered questions and commissioner antonini. >> thank you yes, this project does have some elements that i can support because i've spoken mid-market that i don't favor mcds that allow smoking or

communication on site actually this doesn't have a sale on site rather a disrespect that makes sense however, we've heard from the owner of a nearby building i've heard from commissioner moore he agree the 2 hundred block of california is not the best place to put a distribution center and closer to freeways and larger streets make sense than having that there to that end i did research on the building i see it is in great disrepair according to mr. foster our staff member he said around 25 feet and a 75 foot district it has historical significance built in 1910 it hesitate a level of history and not used the transferable shift i say

those things we have a higher better use with that building that can go anywhere the other concerns we don't know who the 16 mcds that are going to be using connecticut essentially using the second floor we don't approve the projects not knowing who the attendance will be i can the approval goes with the site most of the projects will have a tenant in there at the time, we approve them for example, we don't know this formula retail applies to mcd we've heard about spark and a number of these how do we know a number of those possible mcds would say doing the distribution didn't have 10 outlets someplace so we're approving something that could trigger the formula retail if f

this is the case after the fact and the hours of operation from 6 i think 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. it is a little bit unusual for a business this is a distraction usually the distribution are more restricted but it may not be the choice of the sponsor and commissioner moore spoke to the condition of the building which is you know concern and i assume that will be fixed once we get further along project sponsor mention a long time in permit doesn't mean the building can't be policed in the alley not in the best condition either i guess we've heard the operators for this - who are the operators, sir can you tell me who will operate that facility the same operators

on the ground floor. >> no, it is going to be independently paraded a lot of them are outside the san francisco or enable unable did you go obtain permits. >> somebody has to administer the whole situation to be able to select those and collect rents and all those sorts of things. >> yeah. i mean the property owner has hired people and the liaison has a agent in the building to make sure everyone goes with the policies and conduct with the neighbors and everything i'm going to have a space in there just for myself and for amy lee to share with the security as well to insure everything is in compliance with the rules of conduct and a

manager. >> and a receptionist and manager and onsite security person. >> we don't know who the manager is. >> we've not hired one yet. >> those answered some of the any questions i have concerns voices by sxoer and a few additional ones i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a followup on some of the issues raised about can you explain the operations and how it relates to the downstairs will be deliveries made to the site and from the site and how will that be done. >> in the lease agreement with the tenants there's restrictions when deliveries a can be made we wanted to discourage occur years from in and out we're norwalk

the exact time we thought after 6:00 p.m. would be a down time but the neighbors said this is what when the restaurants get busy so before 10:00 p.m. like 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. only use for non-administrative purposes. >> kwhaepz downstairs. >> well, the downstairs dispensary is going to operates for the term - >> it - a is in the back a normal kind of in and out it has not signage and the same applicants and operators that came before this commission that took a couple of years and upstairs it it entry for a few years downstairs started upstairs it is no excuse but part of the building has not been maintained by trying to work and get permitting someone

is power washing the building 3 times a week for 2 most approximately cameras have been insult we have a quote to refinish the marble on the facade of the building we're going to finish it and adele i didn't coffee shop that as gotten a lease we're limiting anxious to accomplish the same kind of cleans up that commissioner moore a pointed out and commissioner antonini. >> i think overall this is a good part of the issues we've had with mcds are evolved i'm excited together if this is a good site it is downtown in a neighborhood that is not necessarily it is on the server kind of taking up residential space not very he kind of retail friendly so while i share some

of the concerns i'm generally supportive i think it is a good use of site and we'll get this approved it is also will be easier for you to get this done. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to ask the gentleman where 16 small entrepreneurs in the administrative offices do we receive individual deliveries. >> each are independently operated not one person that delivers it like in the morning like a occurier will come and take the medicine out of the prepaged oust. >> how does the delivery come by car or bicycle. >> by vehicle in the morning i believe by vehicle in the morning. >> as you may know that street

is a lot of restraint cable car and restricted hours not in go operation at rush hour because we have anymore people riding the cable car more conflicts cars try to interfere with the people on knob hill use the cable car with their daily translation i timely there i know this needs additional k over and over an additional zone in which you stop in addition to people on bicycles i don't know if you know safe enough to provide a bicycle stand in front of your place which i'm not sure how i you get it a business application the department can address that i'll ask i recall

cereal that two years ago you saw my change our becoming the full occupant of the space in the building since you've the one that has the boarding to the alley i'm interested in that more pro-active place in the alley now being the single representer of leaser i ask you participate in the activation the alley in a proper way one portion of the downtown alley a east west alley positive space from chinatown down towards the embarcadero which should be clean which should be not people lying around it is unsafe to go to the alley given the fact the dispensary as a door to the back

alley i expect positive participation of you in the alley i'd like the director mr. realm addresses that if that what about done and part of the condition of approval. >> could you address that director ram. >> the two things you've mentioned we can follow-up he's a condition of approval one staff approve a delivery plan how trucks or vengeance assess and the hours of operation and the second is a condition related to the alley how the alley is treated with a project and we'll workout the specifics of that in the future. >> i wouldn't say it there is a door of this property in the alley i'm not making this up if

it was a blank wall i won't say anything but a boarding you have property bordering the alley that requires some active participation. >> so the condition could be smile the staff will work with the project sponsor to make the alley more active or something. >> there's safety and potentially adding more positive elements given for the departments thinks about the alley in the future by which the owner will participate in that planters or whatever it might be i don't know. >> sure. >> if i could speak briefly commissioner moore when we metabolic neighbors the restaurants owners their currently actually someone went to michael's office and stole a lot of computers we're working with the neighbors we want to

have an active partnership with this block they've got problems with lyft and uber drivers from security from 6 to temple we'll offer the security guard to make sure that there is pedestrian safety and it is a busy road i think our individual meetings with the community neighbors we can deal with the current problems with the security and cameras. >> i appreciate our volunteering that information thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> i'm supportive of the project i think the next logical step in the medical cannabis it brings out to the light of day some of the operators are doing i think is a great idea the the details we've done it provides greater access to people and minimize the problems with the

neighborhoods that's a positive and some in any way, shape, or form prevent the cannabis that is readily available and their place violations is a touchy process this is a great project and i'm prepared to make a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> commissioner wu. >> i'd like to ask further about the deliveries it is a great idea to have a delivery plan on california it looks like there is a yellow zone is there a tow away zone in the morning is that a problem. >> i don't believe there is it is just yellow in the front and white zones for the restaurants we're sensitive sensitive we know that the white zone that's why we want to try to come

earlier early in the morning. >> i'm also focused on the alleyway. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have a question for mr. foster what kind of ceqa review i know it is a dr and typically we don't have ceqa reviews there are 16 different disinterests they could all have declares at various times of the day and distributions the impact could be significant is there any thought about that being fully and staff thought it was not necessary to look at the traffic impacts. >> show your you've heard the d mp this is simply tenants improvements to the second floor not an expansion of the building envelope but i'm not sure e i'm sure default director ram.

>> not dissimilar from any building it is like on office space so staff felt xhovenl xhofbl. >> i differ to staff for an impact. >> commissioner moore it is only office to office and this is the parts we're prepared to help with the delivery plan and no complaints i assume there is a contact person that should guarantee to be operating smooth smoothly. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to take dr and approve that with conditions including the sponsor work with the staff regarding the supervision and mitigate of any

negativity through safety and lighting commissioner antonini no commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner antonini voting against commissioners that places us under our regular calendar for case 11 at urban street a conditional use authorization. >> aren't we supposed to do the consent item first. >> i'm not sure for the benefit of the public the consent calendar item that was pulled off item 2 for the san francisco west side circled water project will be heard after itafter itwm

>> for the benefit of the public for any person's that might be here for the 3 for later items on the calendar a overflow room on the first floor of city hall. >> good afternoon, commissioners

apologizes to be for the clay. >> pill the microphone up. >> the item before you a request for a confusion for i'veing street between 12 and front avenues the proposed project is the demolition of american people existing two unit residential building and construction of a 4 story residential building with experimental space other than the ground floor it includes one 2 bedroom units, 23 bedroom units and one thousand plus commercial says and a roof deck the proposed mixed use building is 62 gross feet and 422, 3, 4 height inform off-street parking on the bicycle parking a rocks are provided and removal the

parapet will allow one additional off-street parking space so for the rezoning district that measures hundred feet wide for 25 hundred square feet and occupied by the two-story over the garage constructed in 1908 surroundings development is mixed use and three to four story structures at the north corner ofing it has rh2 zoning for the avenues a class 3 categorical exemption was issued in 2015 rising it as a demolition from a prior exemption july 23rd the staff determined the subject property was not an interest rate to any

district that are listed on the california register today, the staff got the following comments two hundred and 40 e-mails for people in support with the merchants association and the assistant heights for responsible people and grow sf and hundred and 167 letters and e-mails in opposition to the project those opposed to the project has the following concerns the loss of a historic building that does not contribute to the proposed neighborhood and the last of rent-controlled units and in order for the project to continue the department must be allow the conditional use authorization

the department recommends that the project be approved that is consistent with the objectives and policies and complies with the planning code the project meets the planning code of the planning code and that although the project results in the loss of two dwelling units subject to rent the replacement will have 3 replacement units with 5 bedrooms for the rent board the project creates one thousand 4 hundred plus ground floor commercial space with the inner sunset of the neighborhood given the scale of the project it last no negative on the street system the proposed building will be consistent with the size and density of the immediate neighborhood and the intent of the mcd the project is

appropriate for development and although the structure is more than 50 years old the it was determined its not historical and the planning department building this is necessary for the following reasons the project replaces the existing units for more fundamental family sized how's and in fills the site with cable chair and provides bicycle parking and increases off-street by one says that the project meets on and on all the requirements presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> project sponsor. >> commissioners good afternoon my name is greg dawson i'm here

with my wife and my daughter christen and neighbors i'm here to inform you for the proposal to replace the for 3 family sized units 2, 3 bedroom we've received enforcements if sharp ucsf and 2 hundred and merchants and residents long urban street and 9th avenue this project supports local the local bills communities as well as brings the residents to the area they belong in a well served district lila and i have lived and served this community for 35 years the first investment when we purchased our office building in 19924 years we purchased another

building almost exactly we've meet met with david to talk about this in the neighborhood district 6 years ago we commissions a feasibility study we highly recommended those both into a mixed use project we've held a long desire to add in an effort to make our communities thrive we're committed to our neighborhood i've worked for over thirty years since 1986 served 6 years on the committees on the ucsf community advisory committee for 2 two years and the founder and executive director for a nonprofit that opened up open space in the heart of san francisco lila and i are not developers we've

carried our documents to planning and attend all meetings we have done everything to make that beneficial to the communities as a whole in good faith we've called for a meeting with the neighbors to talk about that and corrected the statements being calculated the record will reflect while in the meeting a publish quote one of our neighbors our for the most part concern has been addressed that reference is to us removing a section of the rear the building two stories to allow for light and air to the back of his home that sits 40 feet away from the april i object to answer any questions about the last minute letters you've

received after this presentations our project and our community and business and our future are in your hands today, we hope the outcome will help us to remain to call the sunset our home and to help the community and to the city of san francisco i hope i can count on support if each of you commissioners this afternoon i'd like to introduce any architect jonathan pearl man thank y arch jonathan pearl man thank my arc jonathan pearl man thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm jonathan pearl man been working with those folks for two years jonas can we get the slide oh, there you go i want to start by talking about the opposition in opposing to project since i think you received this a day or

two days ago i believe building this is the upper one on the image they e image 33 she they show the back the building and on the lower part of the image where all the words are this is the project we're presenting today i can the big issue for some commissioners is the idea of the demolition of the building according to the office has two units we've done lots of research and reviewed it with staff the staff agrees only one unit in the building with on unite built as a sfrinz in 1970 to convert the building with two

residential units but no evidence in 1986 planning commission approved that at that time the building was note as a basement sell last year ground floor and one residential unit from 1984 to 2004 it was in commercial use with one residential unit and most recent is an born map notes one dwelling unit greg and lila have lived in the building singles 2000 and there's no evidence of two residential unions or units there is with only one kitchen and bathroom so the demolition of this building will not you know end up with is also of a rent-controlled unit the building is not a historic resource and not part of historic district and two

stories covering 40 percent of the area instead of the allowable 70 percent it is highly underutilized according to the sunset blue print document so basically, we have to prove the finding the first one the proposed project is desirable and capable we're adding a retail space we're continuing the commercial district form we believe the project is completely in scale and the design on the sunset of mcd with the good right where the words with many buildings built over the last many years in the sunset mcd that are 3 stories or ground floor commercial and most are far larger than our proposed project

skip down to the slide this slide shows the relationship of our building to the neighboring buildings it seems like the only concern the opposition has is the scale of the building they've related a number of times this slide the imply shaded areas are buildings that are endear or exactly the same height buildings adjacent to our property on 11 hundred irving and across 12 avenue two buildings 40 feet height i find out from the owner on irving 40 feet in height the green is the same sized footprint the 75 percent allows the footprint in the immediate neighborhood this project is extremely you know demonstrate ably in scale with

the neighborhood and these images show the building within the neighboring building be as i said the surrounding building with 40 feet high this is a ridge an iving street and the dawson is 44 feet deep the back of the building reduced to four stories to respect the mid block open space and to address the concerns from the morriss about the light and air into their yard and the back of our yard 28 foot high and both 29 and 26 feet high we're lower than those

all right. >> so in summary the demolition of existing building will not eliminate affordable housing are harm the mcd as presented no affordable housing ♪ building the existing building not a historic resource it is i have seen consistent with the pattern the buildings driveway are inconsistent with the sidewalk and are a pedestrian hazard it is underutilized the project will be an asset to the neighborhood adds two family sized unit and 6 additional bedrooms 2, 3 bedroom units and in housing on an appropriate site and in scale and character that the sunset mcd it is consistent with the inner sunset as well as the goals of the

sunset blue print i hope you'll support our project i'm available to answer any questions >> commissioners we received a request for organized opposition and the commission president has honored that request are they present? this is our opportunity to speak i'd like to remind those members that the people that speak in that 10 minute allotment represent your issues. >> projector. >> commissioners good afternoon. my name is a allen i reside on 12 avenue my wife and i purchased our home in 1970 we found the neighborhood was under

seize from dispensaries demolishing them and building multi unit thanks to the zone neighbors organ with the intent of reducing the zoning from r 4 to rh2 to halt the distribution of the neighborhood many, many hours were extended by volunteers who gathered snatches from the vast majority of homeowners in lincoln way and kirkland and sunset previously we large area from tenth to ucsf was protected by rezoning by the action committee and a a net of volunteers we were turned down by the planning commission we extended our hours the supervisors then lead by

dianne feinstein approved the zoning unanimously and that's from the first page of the chronicle 40 years ago our current concern your small area in the sunset blocked the development by a border in 1907 complete in 190817 hours plus the 5 houses on e.irving they'r built of redwood a few of the homes on 12 avenue feel on hard times and restored by provide owners on irving the excuse me.

5 hours on irving have been neglected and relative to 12 an individual report they're not historic but the 17 around the corner are that's a contradiction the architect is a member of the historic preservation commission not there was anything unfairly done but couldn't have hurt getting the proposed project to this point the initial project avoided claiming a demolition the 5 are built for the ages and present themselves fairly well even though the victims of the maintenance otherwise known as let them deteriorate developers quality they've been neglected and allowed to decay in front of

our eyes for years? the promoted building you'll notice there is a piece of plywood where garbage has been thrown for years now i also building that the two affordable units as buildings in question has been entry and now wants to have one with no parking and charge market rate housing that puts the pressure on the other 4 hundred plus old hours especially the one next door on the owner this is disstressing indeed i should give you a quote the magic for the city lies in san francisco's continuity in the past as but that continuity is destroyed in

our governance to tear down an and or that gave birth to an image of san francisco one by one the bay windows are smashed and the unique base of the city herb cain 1964 thank you. >> hi, i'm kate i live on 12 avenue i'm going to take this opportunity to actually read from a letter of compromise that was signed by 25 of the immediate neighbors on irving and 12 avenue we've not received a responded but it summarizes the immediate neighbors position greg and lila we write this with you and agreeing discharge per the planning commission the various concerns and outlooks by

the business owners to the proposals the meager was helpful for better understanding the proposal and the city's process and considerations with that framework we hope in that this propose an interest to the project and the concerns of the neighborhood as you may know the neighborhood as raised a wide variety of concerns about the plan that is subject to the upcoming plan those include the demolition of the 1908 structure a large approximate area after the 1906 earthquake it is replacing it with units and contribute to the deapplication the the structure of a new structure has aesthetic character within the building in the neighborhood construction

and back expansion and basement expansion and the doors any other single lot structure anywhere in the proximate neighborhoods an addition of a large mass building pretends a trend to drastically and negatively impacting the neighborhood character construction of a new structure who's height is learn a motion and a second structure construction of a new structure that replaces a building with off-street with a 3 unit residential with no off-street parking go contribute to the difficulties in the neighborhood and last and probably lease important the impact the proposed building of the light and member gallo the proposed decks why are we sending this

the neighborhood feels the process had not been extremely hidden to us neighbors universally had no idea of the scope and many businesses that were solicited felt its scope had not on explained and morph it has come pressed that should tell you we have received a notice of demolition a year ago no community meeting or outreach to any of us after we received the notice of demolition we write to explain why we wrote this letter now and not before the neighbors have not been brought into the process if we had we would have the hope those concerns could be been addressed despite the concerns, many specifically in letters to the planning department and loophole

newspapers we are unable together you're not among the corporate developer but the neighbors in the past, present, and future and as you pressed our intention we want to reach a compromise and live peacefully with you to help to develop our property of some of us might have made different choices at the same time, we feel strongly to keep the character of the neighborhood one in which apartments buildings and single-family homes co-cellist we believe that is possible in the inner sunset the buildings have restricted their height for example, the building across the street with the flower shop is lower than the height you've proposed the same is true of the housing for the shops down the

street they've achieved multi tenants and muscle expanded the mass but did so in a contained way and as a result of that containment they maintain a mixed use character in the neighborhood according we want to propose a compromise the neighborhood will support but have your project go forward we'll talk about the demolition is an exchange of a limit to the height of the building to the peak line to the historic building i heard the architect represented that was 34 feet i don't know what the height it that's what we're talking to be clear we'll not object to the current footprint. >> ma'am, your time is up. >> you should have 3 speakers but. >> okay. thank you.

>> so the letters in the record and i'll reiterate 25 people okay opening it up for public comment. >> (calling names). >> we have a couple of people that need to leave thank you. >> commissioners i'm van i own the building across the street my wife owns the flower shop in the building it is actually 40 feet the building next to us is 37 feet i can step on the roof and the other building is 40 feet when i built my building in

19 they said they'll turn that into high-rise my business has a good facade everybody likes the correspond my wife's shop been there for 3 seven years i mistakenly signed the letter that was brought to us because i have to admit i didn't follow-up and doesn't get involved in the process because i thought greg and lila were going a go back but i signed the letter when you look at the real building itself it is only 40 feet high and in the drawings they show the exit into the roof as something that would be visual from the student that exit is in the middle of

the building and none stands on my roof can see that from the sidewalk and recommend another part of that further back as it was sitting in the front i think i definitely i might not agree with the facade that greg and lila but they is the right to it they're not destroying the neighborhood i didn't destroy the neighborhood i don't think they are either thank you. >> hello, i'm naomi i've lived in the inner sunsets and known greg and lila for over 20 years with all due respect to remind the commissioners we dire housing crisis in san francisco the plan that greg and lila are within the policy with the planning department and the mr.

mayor's they're doing an excellence job of in housing along the coordinator are corridor in the inner sunset with the sunset with the in fill development this is an excellence example to add more housing to the west side of the san francisco we dire need there's a trumps amount of housing we need to add to the west side as well i've known them for over 20 years i don't know better people that added and contributed to the inner sunset in terms of the merchant the future shepherd and i support this plan thank you. >> i want to put this picture

up on the screen so this was shown earlier by the planning my name is robin i've lived in the inner sunset for 45 years have a homeowner 12 avenue which is 1907 ed wart i love this neighborhood and love the architecture but i think if you look at this picture unless your eyes sight was pretty poor that building is an eye sore it didn't matter to me the owners are nice people i'm happy they're nice peep people and happy they have a nice family but they're not that building and shouldn't be executive director with that building nice people put up on

ugly building that believe is an eye sore i rode on n judah day and looking at the window and saw the beautiful architecture in the city year ago people want to live here everything everybody is familiar with the painted lady people come from around the world people are drawn to the people because of the culture it is intermixed that the architecture of that city that will be a sad day if this building is builds i agree with the young woman that was up speaking being younger but she was talking about the fact that here comes a domino effect look

at the building next door the owners owns that i believe they do what's next there we go less have enough one why? because you okayed this other one and another house and another house those are beautiful older homes i don't know whether or not it meets a architectural criteria their behalf houses if we want to die our culture wants to die by a thousand cuts let that building be built thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners rob pool just speaking on behalf of myself i live in the lower haiti.

speaking about someone that cares for san francisco i had the pleasure of meeting craig he's put in a tremendous amount of work for a modest proposal obviously a huge housing shortage in the city i believe in building homes for people especially most of it is not being built if the sunsets the sunset has opportunity to add reasonable just add a couple of homes i personally as someone that is much newer to the city don't be scared about the dents i don't own a car lots of my friends don't own car we get around through other modes of transportation i ride my bike everywhere i have trouble seeing

how homeowners ocean to do something similar of years to do something like that we need housing and along the corridors n judah let's keep it going i support this plan i think that craig has done his due diligence and you should approve that thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm bryan i'm on 12 after a block from the proposed site i have no interest in that site other than the fact i'm a new neighbor i support this for pretty much all the reasons people are previously given i want to remind everyone that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder i'll walk past this

multiple times per day i think it is great i want to see this built and perp known several people right there among 12 avenue or less have they're small buildings purchased and had the owners move in and been evicted i want to see more dwelling units built in our neighborhood thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is lee in a i live near that project and use the inner sunset for a lot of my shopping in the commercial facilities that are there and don't exist where i live craig and lila arrest san franciscans they've pit an enormous amount of time and effort to get this acceptable to all people it fits

into the goals of the san francisco housing we do in fill projects putting new housing in transit corridors there's no reason why this shouldn't be approved as far as the arguments this will make a tangle to the beach this can handle 40 feet buildings without the feeling of the neighborhoods i just hope you'll pass approve that project and let them get on and create the family housing we critically need in san francisco. >> good evening commissioners i'm patricia i i've been a resident in the inner sunset i live on the corner of 12 avenue i met craig and lila when our

daughters started kindergarten and so i've been familiar with them as a neighbor's and friend and also and the work they've dub for the community i'd like to emphasis how much effort they've put towards the community and especially for the inner sunset for the commercial businesses there are there as well the work they've done at the sutro are what is the service of all the communities in san francisco they've put numerous support for that and i can't believe they would do a project in which they're not thinking of the community where they're living the effort they've put speaks volumes of their concerns so for

the communities i support the project the sunset street the irving street commercial area is developing and thriving i think that is why to have more how's there needed here in our area and it is not effecting the residential area the way we have in the inner sunset so i urge you to support the project thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm john berry i've lived in the inner sunset since 1969 i'm a thorough supporter of this project and street level commercial and place for the garage and it is amazing the spokesperson for that the opposition repeatedly referred to this building as historic

when planning investigation show it wasn't so i won't go into the krivenlgz of omissions but what is amazing the number of people that signed obtain to this in comparison to those opposing it i'm part of the he's association your orientation is thoroughly in support of this project thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm charles head i'm with jack berry on the hates association with responsible people you have our letter of support for that this project i want to call your attention to the fact this is not an attack on the historic painted ladies green people of san francisco this is not an example of the domino effect in southeast asia

none are operate active criticisms there are criticisms of the dawson's that appeared on the social media such as the next door neighborhood that be unfounded the spokesperson on the opposition said something about a death of a thousand cuts this is about time to affiliate the thousand cuts on the dawson's thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm in thorough supports of this project i've known craig dawson since i was president of the council on the district over 20 years ago highs name is simultaneous with the inner merchants he sort of

glanced over his involvement in light ssdz ucsf we served on together which created mission bay ucsf and is that i haveal in the creation of seiu introduce medias that was established by the divorce of san francisco those folks have ever right to develop their property as prototype i courage you to pass this and approve this project thank you very much. >> i'm going to call a couple of more names (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners aim steve williams i don't represent anyone ♪ case but what was react to a similar to a case i brought i had to come out and speak this

project cannot be approved without voigt the highest general anthropologies of the plan an all of the mandates issued by the mayor's office and is board of supervisors over the past year to address the housing affordability i represent a group of neighbors on an identical project on september 2014 that proposal was 25 clemente street known as 26 avenue this project also involved the demolition of a small older mixed use building which had two rent-controlled units in a neighborhoods commercial district that project, however, included a subdivision of the lot and the building of two 3 new units with 6 units traded for this rent-controlled units that project passed the commission by

a vote have had to 3 after a lot of discussion using the same logic that is use here the staff said that is prishlt to concoct down rent-controlled unit building for trading with the building that is opposite of the policy we appealed the decision from the commission last year and the board of supervisors unanimously overruled this commission by a votes of 10 to zero you'll have to be tone-deaf not to license to the affordability crisis and not listening to the strange bed fellows the affordable housing crisis has put together and every single policymaker or person that spoke all say the exact same thing spur and scott

wiener and the tenants union this includes the chamber of commerce they all say the only way to attack the affordability crisis to first and foremost remain the existing rent-controlled units if we don't do that we've already loss the battle demolishing it is a root cause of the affordable crisis the departments refusal to implore the clear policy is the root cause of affordability crisis so hopefully this time the commission will not go down the rod with the department and reverse is decision thank you

>> commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm frank i'm president of the sunset heights association sharp which strongly supports this conditional use it is good for our neighborhood and good for the neighborhood retail district centered on irving street sharp is a neighborhood association that's been in existence for more than a hundred years we hold monthly moseying and represent the neighborhood this project has our support that will continue to add vibrancy and small businesses with the backbone of our neighborhood the mixed use residential character found on sunset should be counselor not discouraged this is in keeping it is near transit in a walkable area and certainly

consistent with the objectives of the inner sunset district i want to brought to your attention this is a 40 feet proposal for a 40 feet height district other just a few minutes buildings adjacent buildings are 40 feet high many nearby other buildings are compatible size and the adjacent property owner has a 45 foot building this fits in the scale of the street existing buildings 44 foot high what's the beef this is exactly the kind of proposal quality housing and attractive retail san francisco needs affordable housing and needs how's this creates 3 family sielsz units with 5 bedrooms the inner sunset created an average of only just 9 units per year over the last

10 years we need to do our fair share no loss of affordable housing contrary it what under williams says the dawson's have lived here 13 years no loss of off-street parking we gain one space and in the - the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder this is not a historic resource your board of neighbors overwhelmingly support that we hope you'll support it you've received our letter from the neighborhood association thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is a jeremy freed launder i've lived in the you were sunset for that almost 23 years i'm a member of the sharp executive board i've heard has

endorsed this project i'm not going to speak to the merits of project others covered that i'll speak to the merits of craig dawson you can't find a person in our neighborhood who has done more important the neighborhood in the last 10 or 20 years than craig dawson a local hero i know him there his work with seiu introduce sturdy he fount and continues to direct under his leadership seiu introduce as transformed mount seiu introduce to a place of beauty and education and stewardship and community involvement and hope thousands of volunteers have come out there to volunteer over

the years and the volunteers keep coming craig dawson is a part of the reason he's smart and have hard working and perhaps most at all persistence and determination in the face of adversity this project demonstrates the work of dawson is smooth sailing i don't doubt he brings to this project his formidable talents and strengthens of character he has spoken for years about the importance of ground floor retail space in maintaining the character of the neighborhood as a place where you can walk or ride your bike to do route

errands now he's putting your money where your mouth is i don't know if he is going to make a lot of money on this project i certainly hope he does nobody would deserve it more. >> commissioners, if i may interrupt those folks lined up in front of the door you're creating a fire hazard line up on the screen side of the room and those persons for items later on the agenda there's an overflow room on the light court thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i can probably say ditto but i came last time i'm bonnie scomboen e jones a san francisco residents for 65 years 66 next

month i've known those people for 15 years and worked with craig and lila in a capacity of volunteer when they asked me to come and speak this is a in brainier i've reviewed the project and spent a lot of time on irving street and the prong people i think this is a very good fit the dawson's are admirable people this is so true their respectful people of the neighborhood they love their neighborhood and want to stay there this project will give them the opportunity to stay there they're good san franciscans and should be congratulated i think they've worked hard i hope you'll support them in their efforts thank you. >> sorry a couple of more names

sherry (calling names) hi him sherry i've lived in the inner sunset for this years i support the project for all the reasons unify heard i'll noted waste our time by repeating next year my home in the inner sunset is hundred years old i'll be 60 i love old-time architecture but this has no historic value i'm not a big fan of modern architecture but it fits on the block my reason for pointing out out i'll be 60 it is not just the like the young man that ditches the caribbean and gets around by transit you know that

jeremy is a big bicyclist the community is gaining a parking space we're gaining that for people that buy those homes or live in them know in the neighborhood good for transit and bicycling in terms of gloriously warming and how it fits to the emissions the logical place are along the corridors lincoln and n judah and 19th street i hope you'll support it for those reasons thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners taylor with x architecture and

jerry we know this project and fully support this project actually noted the area and studied the building quite frankly commend the planning commission for their work in the neighborhoods there's some very successful projects that were risky and proven to be quiet quits a contribution to the district this project is within the guidelines of the planning department why not approve that i'm confused i think so the conditional use but i'm kind of confused those poor folks have been so long through this this building i know it intimately it is a liability to the neighborhoods and structurally from fire hazard this is a good

project it is an improvement i'm total in supportive of it thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commissioner cal speaking on my own on behalf of i want to clear up a few miss certificate of preference holders about the analogies this building is a single unit owner occupied building no tenants from the family were to leave the building no reason to building they'll rent it instead of sell it anybody this is for owner occupied this will be a gem a found not require you to evict the new tenants that will be a good thing and of by some means there is no way for the city to compel them to rent the

units as a rent-controlled unit if they did the market rate today will not consider affordable no affordable housing that is at risk by being destroyed by that project preserving the rent-controlled units is one part of the strategy other part avenue affordable housing strategy is actually building hours for people that want to live here this project will provide 3 units all of which is sized for families in an area with good parks you know this is rifltd low density and good for children so you know this is something we don't typically see in a lot of projects in the city most buildings don't have as much space so this provides something in the market that doesn't exist today nonetheless you buy

housing to dan a tenants this is an excellent way to provide more how's and decrease rising republicans alu e rents i hope you'll approve that and thank you for your time. >> hello, i'm omar now living in the sunset right now but with respect to this project many people don't see as an eye soar we're within the limits and an affordability crisis in housing as the previous speaker just said while not only are there not retired being lost but at the same time with respect to the establishments that the subtraction of the rent board is not we need more units in san

francisco and this project deems we can have more units without destroying more units and at the same time providing more opportunities for people in san francisco my prospective i'm in support of this project thanks. >> hello commissioners. i'm amy i'm speaking on behalf of the membership ever san francisco a pro how's group for the affordability which haveness we under the influencely support that from the prospective of this is not going through not just two units lost indulging the trends that have been pledging the western side of the city for the last 40 years that led us to the housing shortage

one more housing shut down reinforcing the idea the inner sunset didn't have to contribute to the housing stock this is like a drought everyone is uncomfortable and ever be neighborhoods pitch in one units here and there and 1 on irving street here and there i just wanted everyone to entertain the idea if those kinds of projects have not been shut down by organized opposition for the last 40 years what state would our housing shortage b be in it would be better we need a dramatic chancellor of housing stock in the neighborhoods thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners donald residents of san francisco i completing ask for

your support that on that would this this project asks for adds jobs to the community and the liveability with the neighborhood new construction is drives away crime refresh your memory around the corner and a block away from grandparent this is the responsible of addressing the housing crisis by adding more units to the neighborhood than taking them away thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm dawn and firm was hired by craig and lila to do a study at the time, we met that mr. david lindsay and ma'am, are you you were hired by the project sponsor for this project. >> before. >> 6 years ago. >> you're not under contract

for this project anymore sorry. >> so we met about david lindsay and various people including the current design to have all the revisions we've worked with craig and lila worked with qualified professionals for the past 6 years the project as it stands meets all the code requirements the fact this new building is an improvement in structurally and fire safety to the neighborhood that project is electricities to a better san francisco that we all need the designer of san francisco beauty an architecture mix regardless of age and style so regardless i strongly urge the commissioners to support the project that is perfectly meets

all the code requirements and jumped through hoops than other projects have. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yeah. >> good afternoon. my name is a dave i'm living around the corner on 12 avenue i have aless different prospective i came through a renovation and a massive expansion of my home 19 hundred victorian or thereabouts and i was in doing this project i just finished i tried my best to keep the style consistent with what i saw in the neighborhood and i could have gone further back i'd like to go further back

but my neighbors window is aged along the property line i didn't want to obstruct them having a wall facing up to their window not a good neighborhoods policy i want to invite my neighbors and architect to see this beautiful modern building and see what you, do within the framework of a negotiates ed warn structure it can be done and gorgeous i think come by and see what you can do in a smaller scale i'd like to point out that i'm pro development and rehabilitation of old structures i added a unit in any building as well i'm for adding units in the neighborhood not reck also and unchecked we need to be

careful once we lose the old victorians they're gone for good once you lose won their gone i'd like the excision to keep in mind when in their making their decision thank you. >> commissioner president fong and commissioners my name is patrick morris i go around the block i'm raising a third generation up the street i'd like to start off by aig many neighbors are unaware about this project our neighborhood has been playing catch up and gathering signatures opposed to the project including a majority of people just around from the project neighbors cite various things like lack of privacy and that's to the building but the

massive size is completely out the scale and size of the neighborhood a neighborhood.com maltsdz by low rise architecture and unsan francisco in character the sponsors under the influence and the planning department basis it recommendation on being consistent with the objectives of the inner sunset commercial district i'd like to show you that. >> the inner sunset district are designed to lock the exit building scale and promote new mixed use development in character with the just a few minutes buildings the buildings standards regulate large lights and protect did rear yards above the residential levels this towering mid block

project is nothing up to scale and all the just a few minutes buildings it is not appropriate over 3 times the size of the buildings and you'll have a negative impact on the neighborhood and commercial district top floor eliminates privacy on the block the planning department report in favor of that project cites it's basis as as follows: the project is cable with the surrounding commercial district and adjacent residential buildings that will be consistent about the pattern of development scale and character preserving mid block open space this is from the report that is in front of you the recommendations report on the contrary this is incapable on the block of the commercial

corridor within the no design for the legislated of this no other building along the length of clemente and no other building of this type along hate street simple moved and seconded belongs in upper market or other like building in size and scale and character. >> good afternoon mr. vice president and members of the planning commission i'm dennis i've also in the sunset for well over 55 years and in my times i've seen developments come and go and developments that proposes to meet the bulk and mass of the neighborhoods some are better and some for the worst i'm no support of this

current project simply i know craig and lila for 25 years i'm a retired vertical engineer i want to set the records straight some of the previous speakers in opposition to the project states those buildings ♪ sunset are made of redwood absolutely not surely not this is a miss statement also in terms of the parking i currently live in mid-sunset and in variable they're out of city people park the cars in our neighborhoods to go downtowns so regardless of whether this is additional demands for parking the park will be gone no parking because of the out of town people occupy all parking spaces and lastly i'd like to say no

loss of affordable housing this is a single-family home not subject to rent control and craig and lila have not been entry as some of the previous speakers said i was not going to speak but so much misinformation i felt that was necessary to speak my previous profession i have a project manager and also worked others san francisco master plan building i've attended numerous community outreach meetings where people coming out come out of go left field with unfountsd statements your hearing quite a bit of that the fact that building has been underdevelopment for of years and people coming out of the woodwork saying they've not heard of that this is not true craig and lila is a community

family been if in the communities for decades so i'll suggest that their full the integrity and positive community contributors i'll urge the commission to approve the project thank you very much >> hello my name is silva johnson and everything medical reasons you know, i start waking up up yesterday and i wonder where in the world it was going to their right to improve you know missionary for families support with you know with individuals

you know make sure that their how's to affordable or convenientcy and not much this means i'm sorry about late because of medical health, i want to get this all tooth and music too so we you know doing our bargaining on things that you know we were not i'm sorry, i was latest on some of the communities meetings that we were supposed to be going to do i have a courts meeting to cure cancer i have support with that

so you know how's with affordable and with families you know trying to seek to better build on this thank you. >> technologically challenged need a little bit of help to put this on the screen thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim tree at an i live in the neighborhood i'm actually a little bit alarmed not been the kind of outreach to us in the neighborhood about this sixth prong i respectfully ask the commission vote no until someone on the project compromises on the scale rather than moving that without our acknowledge a

number of people not able to attend and i'll introduce to speak on their on behalf of the proposed design is so large with the surrounding the greater neighborhoods appearance that will sadly set the stage in hodgepodge of building where was was cohen's the building is too high and way out of character in a residential neighborhood with older building some consortium with the existing architecture not the design for this part of san francisco and fitting with the current homes very close and within reason kathy homeowner on irving street i live in a little similar on irving street i'm troubled that

similar buildings will be demolished for the pretens of a master plan for our neighborhood those believes is what everyone admires a lot of buyers at this moment that will be renovate this to once again allow the demolition of those buildings that are iconic to street next door to 1126 the structure as outlined doesn't fit the wonderful thing about the inner sunset is the senseless of communities as it is now this is a balanced area still a recognitionable san francisco neighborhood for the offer bearing structure is ill-considered and impacts all us residents please keep the balance murray a resident on irving

street it will greater demolish it from the south an irving please don't let this happen thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item okay. seeing none public comment is closed. and opening up to commissioner richards. >> i want to clear up a misconception ms. curry we're seeing two dpoogs don't worry about two units people in the audience and people indicating mr. pelosi man that is a single-family home can you clarify what we're limiting looking at here. >> i can as much as possible this is two residential units this which is what we're legally

held to. >> two unit for that the stabilization. >> for the stabilization for the rent controlled. >> their some history with the buildings permitting where in so 8 six the conditional use authorization was issued by the planning commission to construct what the 3-r report current reflects what is not constructed. >> two units then. >> yeah. right now it looks as though the floor plans that were submitted. >> the kitchens and bathrooms on both levels. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> another questions, mr. lindsay could they get a cu or variance to take away the parks per units is there something for

that. >> yes. they could get a reduction. >> thank you very much upcoming mr. williams thank you very much mr. williams hit the nail on the head a year ago tomorrow and all the reasons why we should for about two reynolds units and have many, many businessmen's than we're proposing didn't it doesn't matter the units are vacant that was built before june of 1978 indicates their rent-controlled units i think that you know we vote 4, 3 on that project so allow the demolition it went to the board of supervisors on appeal and one 10 zero and to be honest i'm at is also why this project given that by the board of supervisors and mr. stars recounting how we the vote are effect the vote on the

demolitions i'm a little bit taking taken a back we're not looking something last year on demolishing rent-controlled units i think from the pardon want to achieve commercial space take a drive past castro and look at it where the space is in garages you could probably expand the building the building should not be demolished not about the sdau u dawson's there are people that love you because it is for the good things not about aesthetics we were here because it requires a cu north beach library necessary and desirable i don't support this project i'll be voting no on

that i think as some of the speakers said you can't add additional rent-controlled unit ♪ city it is illegal by stalling we knock down two, that didn't pencil out on balance we vote think whether or not the project is really on balance and in accordance with the general plan my bright line is to demolish it he a it throws it of balance >> commissioner antonini. >> i enthusiasticly vote a lot of miss condemnations many buildings the loud height a 40 feet and this is not an exception for the heights we're creating family sized heights

which is not case a couple of 3 bedroom unions as well the commercial says that a net gain given the cloudy history that has been described and none has spokeswoman spoken against if staff feels that the 1970s division into two units is the 3-r but the 86 cu was not acted upon made it one commercial and one residential the 70s was not acted upon none has shown me any raernts are renters that is occupied adds a single-family home if you want to go back to what's been used in the past and 1964 apparently it was permitted as a hundred percent commercial office space upstairs and sdpz

you have to go by usage not just the 3-r report it has been used when it was a someone residing in that as a single-family home in fact, that was originally a single-family home since it was built until the 60s when necessary did the revision to make that commercial and a revision for 2 units that was not activated and another revision to make it was and residential which of the not activated by essentially but in use as a single-family home as far as i am concerned every reason this is all it will ever be unless and approve that that's my take you can leave a lot of dumpy building all over the place in case they were rented instead of building now units that will be occupied and

serve for many years in the future so i'm very much in favor of that someone recorded on one kitchen ms. curry said one kitchen is there only one. >> during my site visit on the ground floor there is a kitchen space lithium played, however, that facility has been removed not acting as a kitchen space. >> no permit history showing the addition of the arch kitchen. >> there's no kitchen. >> no permit history to the kitchen of the single-family home it is a very the permit history so it was very difficult to decipher. >> so might not have been a kitchen but a commercial in the 60s it is hard to say what the

history is on that. >> pearl man. >> i want to clarify the floor we're talking about without a kitchen is the commercial floor only one floor of the commercial and one floor residential the floor with that is supposedly have two units only has with an kitchen and one bathroom so the floor the main floor the first floor i think in the real estate when the real estate office was there they put in kitchen net so that's the space we're but that's the kitchen. >> seems to make sense the 3-r report says two units we have to deal in the real world never going to be 3 units only one

unit unless we build in a couple other things it is a good project for those who don't like parking we're supposed to be promoting and the sunset has produced less than one percent we're clearly on the west side have not done our job and until we up realize the full potential that exists in a lot of those areas we're not going to help with meeting the goals the city needs to meet i'm very much in favor of this project it is stealing well crafted i like more architecture but that is good designed. >> commissioner hillis. >> so this is an interesting case we had that case before i vote for that i'll vote for it

again, we got more units and lost some rent-controlled units but it is interesting to see what happens to those units but we should go to clemente street it is absence different and i'm not quietly sure two units going to 3, 2 rent-controlled units and non-rent-controlled units it maybe no rent-controlled units i don't think you know can you all shed light have you talked about to the rent board what this building is you could probably claim it is commercial with more units i've not seen the 3-r report or the permit history i mean, i don't think we're resolve that. >> if i could address a few things we have resided ♪

building for 10 years there's been tenants in there to what commissioner richards is asking about we actually went all the way through the process guided by planning to the point for a dr and we were going to keep most of the building we had we were saving the building and units no question we get to that point but the planning department requires we bring the commercial space up to grade level for ada it is 3 feet belief grade the sidewalk is 3 feet higher than it we have to bring it up 3 feet it is sitting back ten to 12 feet depending on the bay window we had well over 50 percent the building saved but the fact we were covering up

the facade with the in addition to the front we went 3 years through planning on the track of a dr and ended up having that jagged out from underneath us and we made a decision the decision do we want a commodity building not seismically sound what are we're going to do we have to go through this much more difficult process let's start from scratch bringing the building up forward i mean, it was really insane after the guidance we've been told we could not did that i'm here a few year later after submitting a permit for a new structure in

front of you so regarding the usage ability we questioned it with the real estate before we purchased that we had our office next to it knew there was commercial use on and off for a long time the same person we bought the knowledge it show us one building unit on 26 irving before that was as recent and of dwelling units with the same owners they're doing what everything else is doing their renting property and in their shared communities space that's what the rest of the victorians are being used for i hope does that clarify anything >> it clarifies there's no clarity (laughter) unfortunately which is i base this in my own

place we've listed 7 unions they have every units excepts the kitchen to 1 unit to we can't give you clarity on what the building is the city should be able to clarify and have a board of appeals clarify it and people have done that and precede forwards i was supportive of the clemente project but only 2 units and now 6 and now it 2 to months of the neighbors have not talked about the building but the massing i think the massing works this is a commercial strip it is should be more commercial you kind of loss that into 19th street it gets mud eldest the

gentleman says those building have run down the street didn't know whether it is residential or commercial clearly residential on 12 but between 12 and irving your building works i think the issue we have is the loss of rent-controlled units if you could say the city attorney will tell us we're designate two of those unions as rent control we'll be fine add a units and that united works we're always told we can't do that it seems like there is now flexibility that will work but i think if so it two residential units i couldn't supports either you have to look at the project opposing on 18th street expands in the back or jack-up the building there is ways to do it if you found out it is one unit

not subject to rent control single-family we need to figure out that out we'll be back to the board of supervisors you know you will whether everybody else is claiming we approved two units being demolished for 3 non-rent control i know that is not a good thing that's where we are and what's happening in the past so those are my comments. >> commissioner wu. >> i have some similar thoughts as commissioner hillis i'm fine with the marge's and fine with the architect if so very unclear so if i could ask the architect saying the first floor is the commercial but dawn as a residential unit a living room and family room. >> right. >> it is just it is unclear.

>> it is pretty unclear. >> as a commercial unit you'll have to go up the stairs advertise not currently ada assessable. >> right the records show that first floor has been used as commercial from we very specific records from 85 to 2002 we know that was converted in 1964 to be all incremental and 1986 listed as one commercial space and one residence space this was approved by the planning commission and by the planning commission at the same time it was used from that day until they bought it as a commercial space on the first floor. >> your records is the 86 was not - >> not excused the point was

vetted at the time by the practicing those that the existing building was one commercial unit and one residential unit. >> if i could ask staff a question do you know what records the staff look at do they come to planning in front of you. >> i'm not clear we can get the answer to that. >> commissioner i'm sorry. >> i'd like to know that information it is demolition of the rent-controlled units that is a challenge for me, i know that no renters are living there now but only so many tools to regulate pricing and if a new renters came in it would be an important persistence to hold onto. >> commissioner antonini. >> this sounds like it is muddled i'm fine with the

project you have to look at the big picture not picking on a building that's not been a rented i think i hate to continue this but that make sense for the project manager to go to the city and try to get a determination of which of those various entitlements listed over the years is the one that is now in effect it should be the late itself one that makes it one commercial and one residential even though it was not activated neither was the two rent-controlled units so that would be my interpretation of it but you know, i can't make that determination someone at the city so you'll suggest we continue this item for 6 weeks do you think this is a long

enough project sponsor to get that determination. >> yes. mr. pearl man. >> i'm not sure how does one do that through the rent board's we'll do that. >> no it is more through dbi you've got to look through the permit history. >> we have that. >> work through the zoning administrator and dbi some people filled the permit to clarify and appealed their own. >> in my opinion you have the most recent permit even though not acted upon is one that shows one commercial and one residential so that would hopefully be the one that could be substantiated in effect to the 3-r report and those are notorious for being inaccurate if this is the case we we get

the towns or continuance how much time. >> from the most recent permit in 198 six the department has the history and the last one that was acted on the 198 of permit if we went impact to dbi they don't have reported it was not finalized so you know i don't know where we stand we have that information you know as the application is in the record for which says one residential unit and one commercial unit. >> so i agree with you but the city for many of the commissioners here the city will have to take the position it is one residential and one commercial unit not say it is two units even though they never will be rented or never be in rent control this is what we need to, done i'm asking the question i'm asking

you if we get a continuance what will you need as far as the in the amount of to get the substantiation. >> it's hard to know how long dbi will take. >> i don't want to renotice that lets is 6 weeks pick a date, sir can i get 67 weeks. >> this is around october 22nd but realistically i would say two probation officers is a more realistic timeframe. >> early november. >> november 5th the fifth of november if i'll

make a motion to continue this to november 5th to establish the status of the building in questi question. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore in finding the records there is a recorders office and the tax assessors office the system has its own timeline a lot of people are in the process of soft story building updates and their many, many resources they will probably create like contrary way of bringing it but the reddish and on and on including names of people that might have

also in the past or someone that also interest it is stitching together information so the only thing i want to say when you have a commercial space like golden gate was commercial zoning that as key lots of 12 and 11, etc. being residential streets it is a difficult context of design particularly the transitioning and scale if you go down the residential streets looking at towards the commercial strip makes it somewhat difficult i'll have hoped that that transitioning would be looked at carefully which we looked at 24th street the one that mr. williams mentioned we continued that project for more sensitive integration i voted because of

the rent-controlled units but there was ultimate an even more sensitive tied design which could perhaps be achieved by shaping the building a little bit more i'm saying i'm in support thought you finding the records to look at it is important obviously and that's all i'm saying. >> i'm not going to be supportive of a continuance i'm in favor of that project while i understand that the west side and heights and the design and bulk you know on the larger streets we're geary billiard or irving there's a heavy transit and more streets i'm okay this is muddy waters their admitting it is muddy waters as far as permitting this is a chance to clean this up and get more you

housing units on the street i'll not be supportive of the continuance. >> commissioner richards. >> we have the same situation they're combining two units and trying to get a permit for the single-family home but eventually had to make a decision on the 3-r report what's the controlling document is it dbi planning information system how do we know when they amend the documents we want to see it is a reflected as. >> the dbi report depends on the actual record of all permits. >> okay. >> sponsored to show the trail of the changes on the property through the history what's been done legally. >> the 3-r report changes the whole game can you show that is commercial and one unit i'll change my mind i support the

continuance. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank very much i've not said anything i'm highly architectural with this project that is an opportunity to maximize that dbe beacon hill the block the very heights that are mr. particularly the corner building this works just wanted to make a comment we've seen comments before commissioner richards mentions one we had muddy waters and i want to say from my prospective you'll not get clarity my understanding we had this discussion latest within other unite night and asked we're basically, told that dbi is doing exactly we were comfortable looking at the puzzle pieces there's no clear picture they're going to dig up

you know some capital improvement plan somewhere to with that said, i'm okay i'll be okay supporting the project today but if we move it i agree with commissioner moore build a clear story the story we got should have been presented to us before today walk in not knowing but presenting a clear history of how the building will help even if you can't get to a clear decision i don't think you you'll get to that bans higher my understanding of dbi what they do making a determination. >> commissioner hillis. >> on the question of the 3-r report someone at the city should can i whether the zoning administrator or not they should claim what it is but the question is the 3-r report the last permit that was issues was the two residential and one

commercial? is that what we'relying on >> sir you'll have to speak into the microphone. >> the 1986 rotator was in the 3-r report the one that said it was two unites with one commercial was 1970 so in 1986 shows the permit dbi didn't have the record of it. >> what's the last permit. >> 1986 was the late one issued bet planning commission. >> to do what. >> to add a building in the rear yard sorry. >> so the 1986 conditional use authorization was to construct a new structure in the rear yard go two residential units over commercial didn't reference or show plans we've pulled a at&t's

all the plans no reference to what existed in that building. >> so that permit sorry. >> that permit was never excused on. >> correct. >> but that's what we are relying on. >> that is what that appears dbi is referring to. >> so that seems wrong if you go in he'll be it further resolved build 3 units and not it is not 3 units it is what's before that it is what's before we needs clarity internally we at the parklet shouldn't rely on a building permit and it has expired in the permit before that was a one unit we'll need to do more work.

>> to clarify to be able to show previous to the 1986 permit what the building was used as and hopefully on the 86 unit on the existing use that is existing evidence. >> i'll leave it up to you guys we have to have an understanding to make a claim of what you're using it for if foaming people want to build a 3 units building someone should know that determination and think is zoning administrator has done that? the past on conversions from industrial to office and kind of made the claim as to how much office space based on the permit we need to do that process here. >> okay. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. as mentioned by commissioner president fong and commissioner johnson i favor

this project either way but i think in real terms we're not sure of our vote today, we will not be sure of my appeal that may occur we've been through 2 hours of testimony it might be possible it might be appealed we need the strongest possible case that's why i'm supporting the continuance. >> commissioners another motion that's been second to november 5th to will you the project sponsor to determine the legal status and used commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong no so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that passes 6 to one with commissioner president fong voting against commissioners that places us on

item 12 for case fitzgerald avenue egbert. >> you missed one. >> what is that. >> it is 12. >> after the next one. >> oh, sorry. >> okay. so if those persons exiting the room could do so quietly we have additional business item 12 for the next case an 1315 fitzgerald and egbert a planned conditional use authorization good afternoon commissioner rick planning department staff the project is a conditional use authorization and planned unit development pursuant to the planning code sections to allow the subdivision of 3 large loots

within a pdr district to construction two new larger scale industrial building from the p u d for the parking space the proposed project subdivides the lots into 4 new lots and demolish 3 scale industrial buildings the two new industrial buildings used for light manufacturing consistent with the pdr zoning district and thirty feet tall and heights with a ceiling heat of 25 feet plus subdivided into smaller commercial units each murray's 35 hundred square feet the project will remain a story building measuring 22 hundred square feet and two mixed use buildings with ground floor

retail into jennings street as part of the subdivisions the project provides a rear yard for the mixed use dwelling units front into jennings street to align to the proposed building on the project site on august 5, 2015, did bayview reviewed that they've voted to approve that that the project sponsor explore perpendicular square feet and they are concerned about the lack of parking and wanted the net loss of off-street the depth received two corresponds one, if terry rivers and audry expressed opposition and terry noted the number one number of the residential properties in the neighborhood and windows additional meeting audrey noted

the project will interrupt the neighborhood and add pollution and further add to the parking issues within the neighborhoods in addition the department received a petition signed by 27 people that expressed opposition the number of commuters and parking spaces the department staff supports and recommend approval the department finds is it be necessary and desirable the department force the modification and supports less parking at the site specifically it establishes a new industrial use that borders the light industrial and construction a new building that helps the needs of the industrial uses and not displaces any of the tenants and consistent with the character the neighborhood and in harmony with the immediate

vicinity and maintenance maintains the area the 14 is present that concludes my presentation. and i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> project sponsor please. commissioners, i will be very short we did attempt a meeting with the bayview citizens citizens advisory committee and i'd like to make that one small clarification when they talked about going to sfmta it is the project sponsor is going to into ♪ consulttion with the neighboring neighbors that said the parking change we've submitted a brief i know you have a link calendar one question that was raised during that meeting with the

neighborhoods i'd like to mention if they want to know what kind of use for the units obviously with our approval it is impossible to try to hire someone to market it; however, they have had incredibly some coffee roosevelt company and educators that want the space as well would a gentleman who makes furniture by hand wood furniture so this is the kind of potential tenants that will be going to go here in terms of the number of employees you know it will vary it can be 3 to 10 depending on the nature of the business and finally i believe that one of the commissioners is interested in the kind of rental

evolving what the rent will be currently the rents on the existing building is varying between $0.75 to depending on the kind of tenants improvements and what in their looking at is somewhere between a dollar and maybe a dollar 75 depending on the level of tenant improvement that is part of the anticipated market rent they'll be asking for if you have any questions, i'll be glad to answer >> opening it up for public comment any any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you yeah. i think that is a very good project and it is going to bring a part of ourville area

into the modern era if i drive to places like brisbane or san launder you drive into the industrial area they're new and criterion and over industrial use as the kinds of space they desire i know many owners in the industrial uses that have moved out of san francisco specifically not so moved so much for the cost but the type of facilities that was provided for them and you know the oldest facilities just were not meeting their needs so to be competitive we have to do things because the loss of pdrs jobs and loss of industrial is not because of cost but because of the type of facilities are dated and this is going to make us competitive it

looks like the cost per square feet is not going to change sixth and probably is impartial throughout the bayview i'm supportive and move to approve. >> second and commissioner johnson. >> thank you just real quick it is this is a good project for the area we talked about saving pdr says that a concentration a lot of buildings are vacant this is a good way to walk the walk and support pdr in san francisco's this is a fantastic area i'll say a couple of things this area it surrounded by rh1 and all single-family homes around the industrial buildings i hope they'll certainly be immediate outreach in the area around the construction activities and the potential for disruptions in the neighborhoods

but i want want to make a quick plug we've plugged mta as part of this and the citizens advisory committee and other neighbors are going foreperson dick parking i hope they get it that street is wide this is an easy decision to make i want to say we've not we i've seen this before when we were looking at the produce market other pdrs spaces that were being improved and people were concerned about the availability felt transit and having workers coming and going and caterers a lot of times working the night shift i'll make a further plug this is the kinds of improvements lots of fines and increases inform the thirds street line that are dumped on some plans from the

planning commission knew what those were we would have the ability to at least thinks and potentially be able to respond to concerns like those that appear before the planning commission so thanks very much i support that. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm in support of the pdr building into the mark market and i think that is important one question for mrs. barkley did you have discussions with sf made lake on the hover there was a lot of pdr and poor typical units many different kinds of pdr that was conducive to controlling the prices like energyal spaces that guarantee the infrastructure the spreads

between $1 and one directing 50 maybe currently one 75 is quite a bit for an citywide tenant while in the woods working business and small experimental type of jerry so have you talked with sf made it get a betters feel of where to go with this space. >> the actual discussion with the different brokers under the terms of what kind of base what about brought both in space has not been gone to depth we had no idea when they were coming before the commission so hopefully, if this prong is approved today that is what we'll start going to look for as far as the spaces since they've got 35 hundred square feet most

certainly, if a group of individuals that wanted to get together to share that is something that the project sponsor will consider if they start a company. >> i assume that will be interesting to hear about it because affordability and displacements of pdr in other areas is looking for one-on-one replacement space i'm throwing this out the displacement of pdr is a difficult discussion even in this commission and anything that could be brought forward by our applicant it would be commendsable the next is the probation officer comment been the face of the block that is a pro-active and good way of doing things not displacements bull indeed enhancements and stabilizing the units that are

otherwise deteriorating that become for questionable and habitable parking if parking would have a streetscape design consultants bulb out for every tree that might be standard that would be a way to perhaps a way of helping the neighborhood to accept the perpendicular parking that would be a great idea. >> first of all, i'd like to say that number one we're within block if third-story and faster the street trees this is going back going to be planted all united states way around the block and in front of the each of the units there will be planter boxes to make sure they are greenery and shrubbery in front of the businesses. >> i hope the department which

is quite skilled in escape will make the maximum if you have relentless parking so this is a thought i think that will be handed by the department otherwise i'm supportive of the project i think that is a step in the right direction. >> as we moved further redefining the design of the building and looking at the streetscape and thoekz to approve that project with conditions shall i call the question. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners shall we move on to the next item.

>> commissioners the consent calendar items were pulled off item 2 for case the san francisco west side recycled certification of the environmental impact report and as a result, it forced items 3 ab for case numbers the san francisco west side recycle water consideration for adoption from the ceqa please note the paeshz is closed for the submittal draft end in 2015 and public comment will be received when it is called during the meeting, however, the comments may not be submitted in the final eir. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of

the commission craig johnson the item is the certification of the final eir or eir for the recycled water project sponsored by the public works or sfpuc a copy the draft certification is before you the draft eir was published published and it was he would say on august 23rd and the the public hearing closed on 2015 and it was published and directed on august 2015 the evaluations of the issues contained found the prelims of the project would result in significant environmental impact those can be mitigated to a less than significance level, however, the prong is part of the sfpuc the project could

contribute to the significant and unhave been able project listed under item 7 of the draft certification motion that relates to the growth inducing impact due to the projects contribution to this unverbalized impact the puc needs to do you want a overriding of the california environmental quality act should the puc approve the project with that, the staff recommends i do you want that the comments is accurate and the procedures the final eir was prepared and comply with the permissions of ceqa the ceqa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code this that concludes my presentation. unless the commissioners have any questions. >> okay any public comment on

this item? there was one speaker card michelle. >> we are calling up 3 items at the same time but we'll act separately on those. >> audrey did you want to make a brief presentation why not do that now. >> audrey. >> i'll audrey harris with the citywide planning staff and the planning department staff way have in front of you the draft motion to do you want the ceqa motions from the internal revenue that was presented and the second the general plan referral for the west side recycle project staff found it is consistent and anymore specifically it fits objective 5 insures an adequate supply of

water to meet the niece and maintain a adequate waters distribution within san francisco in conclusion the staffer recommends you approve the ceqa findings and finding the project on balance is in conform it with the general plan. >> now public comment mr. florlz. >> thank you for waiting all afternoon by the way. >> i didn't know that was going to be this late i live 10 minutes away from this project my concerns with is behind the streamlining area and pitting this into the plan more people in traffic to be a nuisance i volunteer at the center that are dedicated to serve people with

mental and disabilities that sits across from the center it is the health risks of a construction site one mentioned the environmental impact report 2, 3, 42.3 those are emissions this is a vulnerable population who uses the center for learning and developing whatever they can't develop on their own building the staging area closed to the center is unfair you use the term less than sixth it makes me concerns it explains how the staging area on the road will be an impact of the construction of pipeline going around 35 and the guideline billiards this is pretty much across the street. >> from the staging area

the environmental impact report says that damage done will be less than significance that's a term i don't understand what less than sixth would be would it be effecting hundred turtles less than significant or effecting one turtle is significant i get the concern any birds with the treatment planted will be assumed to have been habit i cannot to the activities again, the burden of proof is to a third party member of the transaction this is adams to the charge which would there the ammonia concentrations

according dot clean water act it reached the ends of its 5 year term last year they'll be presuming they met the requirements to get the requirements yet and a half yet to get the permit qualification are my only concerns thank you >> is there any additional public comment on this item? okay. not seeing public comment is encompassed o closed and commissioner johnson >> i think that the eir was prepared adequately and surveyed all the locations of the project in a adequacy manner in the case of ceqa i want to finalize the environmental impact report. >> second. >> thank you. >> commissioners there is a

motion and a second been that second commissioner antonini your commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and now you should consider items 3 ab commissioner johnson. >> fantastic so i wanted to reiterate ashley i think your name was no that's not your name i'm not going to guess thank you for staying all afternoon we had a orders of operation with our agenda i present hearing our comments i do have a coupler the questions and comments about the finding the eir hopefully, a couple of quick changes this project is a little bit challenging it is definite

necessary for urban infrastructure but for sure represents a conflict with the urban national environment question can't avoid that there are urban have been able impacts to the environment in a few different ways with that said, our finding are favorable for consideration and our finding regarding the eir need to be crystal clear what what we are doing in moving forward i nodded that part of those r there was a water supply infrastructure plan that on this went through 2018 we're at the end of 2017 we're doing a override considerations to talk about that that on goes to a plan that coffers two years from now there are other goals for infrastructure that go to

2030 but this apply the water is important ms. the recycle water and gray water i think i want to suggest for an overriding consideration we talked about benefits now i'm going to look at package 29 of the motion we have the statement of overriding consideration the principle point we're talking about the water strategy for retail water through 2018 so that is clear to anyone that reads this this is clear i don't know that this is good enough have we thought about this when we present the eir would voluntary went out longer. >> commissioner johnson with all due respect we've already adopted in motion.

>> yeah. >> oh, i'm sorry, i'm sorry. >> exemplary. >> i don't think we have excuse me. i apologize. >> so we did the certification eir and now on the project i'm actually going to suggest one change the eir was prepared properly and the offer riding considerations generally speaking i concur and want to make that one change we're clear talking about benefits in part are only documented through 2018 so maybe the language could be. >> if i can. >> so sorry. >> to comment on that. >> i can offer a little bit if you like when the water system improvement abruptly was adopted they were initially trying to project that out to 2013 there

was controversy so the mayor commodity and said all right. this is going to be values until 2018 at which times we'll re-evaluate in the bay area that's the revenue date is about it is reevaluating the growth projection if they've over or under and re-evaluate the needs for water in the bay area. >> we're saying the same thing. >> i want to make sure that from the this is meant to cover a longer than time period that alexander this language will not death penalty that from happening that's my only concern you know what i mean if they say there is sufficient water to meet the growth is that inhabit that if this is only good until

2018. >> well, i think that is reflects the record in 2018 the waters supply will be reevaluated until that times your suspension there could be a effect of the growths problgd in the bay area that is unable to have an additional water supply that's the offer riding consideration that is rehabilitated in the finding to account for the fact that the additional growth in the bayview up until 2018 this is enabled through the quarts salt lake city improvement program some additional significant environmental impacts due to this time period to what decree

we can accommodate i don't understand 2018 will be reevaluated in 2018 i think that language is fair and he think that reflects cutters what you said is not in here we can translate that and put it in there i'll make a motion we'll take a quick momentum and write it on a cards do you have a promoted lack i don't have those finding in front of me unfortunately. >> package 29 at the bottom commissioner johnson do you mind commissioner moore. >> director ram could you building this requires the city

attorney to advise us i see some hesitance and those finding were reviewed by elaine. >> offering speak of the attorney. >> unfortunately, i heard i was watching downstairs and heard about a question of the finding i was in transit so i'm a little bit unclear as of the concern about the finding but i can tell you what tim johnson explained; is that correct that there is a very large document that was done original to support the entire water- the entire program for the puc it vaeltsdz through 2030 and ultimately the puc approved a water supply program

that provides sufficient water through 2018 and it did agree as tim explained in 2018 there would be a reevaluation of whether additional water supplies were needed to supply beyond that point the vbdz are really a reflection of the analysis that was done back in 2008, i believe it was for the waters supply improvement program that analysis looked at all the growth in the be sure or in the service area for the puc that serves 2 and a half million people and considered whether necessary needs additional water to be able to implement that growth and the calculation was necessary need additional water and the puc system will enable the supply of that additional water that's why there was a

conclusion reached that any water supply project electricities to the possibility of growth itself in many documents that were reviewed and that is in the 2008 report found impacts associated with growth that's why the language in the finding. >> i think what you missed i think that directly reflected in the statement of overriding consideration. >> how do you want that regretted. >> in the cutters it makes a .2 million gallons her or per day and surface waters increases the waters supply sources or recycleed water and enforced surface waters in the first bullet point i want to make that explicit that that finding it bans an analysis that goes

through 2018 and that there be a reestimate. >> just to make sure we're other than the on the same page so the finding i think so your referring to are talking about the recycle project they're not talking about the entire with the program. >> right. >> they're focusing on explaining how it is why it is beneficial to the system that the recycled water program will provide two additional water now and 2018 and 2030 that project is limited to provide limited n g d so that particular statement is just reilly focusing on the benefits the recycle project itself it is a relatively small project in the grand scheme of things the puc is providing to it's service area 2 hundred and

65 million gallons per day it is a small part but an part part if the that motion carries prospective. >> maybe i was trying to make it easy it needs to be in there so maybe the further point what's the the wisconsin i am the providence the retails sthoel stwhoel, etc., etc., etc. something that assess that under the influence cuts the supply. >> i think in the first sentence we will say 3 slash 2018 and for clarity the bullet after the in addition paragraph the second bulleted add alleged or at the end of that sentence

through 2018. >> thank you very much for coming out. >> you're welcome. >> and i'm sorry to everybody i'd like to make a motion to a adopt the finding for ceqa and having this in conformation with the general plan. >> thank you, commissioners commissioners there is a motion and a second to adopt the ceqa finding to reflect through 2018 on page thirty and the general plan referral commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero

shall we continue on here. >> very good then commissioners that places us on 13 ab for c e cases 2101 mission street commissioners that is a request for office space authorization as well as conditional use authorization please note that - >> we have a transition of folks i think the commissioners could use

>> i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on items 13 ab for case numbers at 2101 mission street an office development and a question for conditional use authorization please note an august 6, 2015, did planning commission held a public hearing and closed public comment and continued the matter to this at a time given that this item as gone through a full hearing the project sponsor will be priority 5 minutes to update the commission with what has transpired over this last month

and is organized opposition will also get five minutes hopefully representing as many members of the orientation organization as possible and the members of the public will be afforded one minute to to this matter. >> good afternoon commissioner from the planning department staff that case was presents an august 6th after any presentation pregnancy by the project manager and an organized opposition and general public comment you moved to continue item to today is earring with the project manager considered the ultimate parole and determined whether modifications can be made its mines that the representatives of both parties participated in a emotion by supervisor campos not not that i'm aware of that

led to - in the claktsd use history at that time, i want to enthuse some of the planning code issues related to the project first is that the project inquires or requires the conditional uses for both the projects it is not a zoning into types of with permissible as long as their granted conditional use authorization and both are in violation of the planning code i'd like to clarify that administrative services are just one type of office space permitted within at rezoning district other types of businesses for the neighborhood commercial include the travel the agent and hair sloomgz slogans or dentists their convincing from the other example they provide services to

others businesses and not the public comment? why we have the conditional uses and on this lout in the density commercials districts the project includes more 25 thousand square feet of floor area for the project includes an office authorization should the commission disagree and include the office types of in its place i nodded such hair slogan and dentists and music schools those are category grisz per the code in the commercial district an authorization will be required still in regards to trade shops if so important there is no convert between one educator of the trade shop to at a change if a trade to a repair shop is from a book shop to a

retailed store under the railway use the reason for distinguishing in the motion because the project requires a conditional use authorization for any individuals tenants spaces that are greater than 6 thousand square feet the motion it identified as a single tenant occupying up to a maximum of approximately 24 thousand 8 hundred and 50 square feet that was done to have the maximum determination for this was to be managed if you approve that amount and the applicant make sense their current comment of said square feet the artistry shops will remaining the floor area will still be dedicated in open to other trades shop uses another thing to note that trades shop uses require a

conditional use authorization when in their located above the ground floor to facilitate the industrial used to as long as they are maintain in a neighborhoods contact by having a storefront presence that is why it includes the gallery on the ground floor ults the department approves that but the department recognizes the complexity of the arrangement within the building and the history of visions both of the artists and the office tenants inform this reason we require an annual reporting of the buildings tenant and tare dedicated space those reports will be kept as a record and be available for public review with that, i'll conclude my presentation i'm available to

answer any questions thank you. >> project sponsor please. good evening commissioners my name is rochelle i'm the director of public and public partnership with the san francisco arts commission i'm happy to be here to speak to article 13 and i've been streaming this meeting since noon and thank you for your service today, the arts excision is happy to work in collaboration calculation with the arts department and we're limiting map we've been in regular conversation with the artists from the building and like to continue to support them with the city department we know from individual artists displacement from those studios is a real concern and want to mitigate in we courage the developers to block to best practices and recommend they work with the nonprofits to help to serve the master tenants they

can assist with manage the studio spaces and is storefronts gallery and will help with the nonprofits we certainly like to see no undue wurn to fall upon the artists they can be a comboobl to the artists and they don't center the resources to do the capital work the organization has agreed to allow them the first right of refusal and i'll be here for questions for the duration of the items thank you. >> please project sponsor.

>> good evening, commissioners steve with umbrella and pawar tell with the studio and this at the collection of frill e april 6th hearing a number of concerns and request from the commission we spent the last month resolving those first, we went back to the structural engineer to get the seismic an and a wler on the inadequacy of the unsafe for occupancy until a retrofit is concerned at a cost of $8 million it it needs to be approved and for us to achieve the representatives to pay for the retrofit we laktd the closer of the building as requested by the cultural action while

keeping the retail benefit place tab b an economic summarizing that feasibility evaluation go as you can see the additional is not finalable, in fact, more pursuant for the owners to sell it and not retrofit the, under that commissioner roy the rents will for the be sufficient to pay for the work third we researched the permit with permission approving the authorization most were pdrs building 9 such case tabbed in number c the 83 conservation o conversion and the lowest percentage is 50 percent on 663 street we want 37 percent of the building office most it occupied

by office by far the lowest conversion proposed it is not feasible inform convert lance less than that amount of office space and by mr. medina they've evicted several attendance we'll write a detail report to sf purpose the building in 2013 as tab building inspection commission only one eviction this was in the work the individuals were illegal living in the building and finally we spent 4 hours inform supervisor campos office in a confident emotion at 3:00 p.m. advocating for a significant amount of space in the building unfortunately supervisor campos best effort no agreement was researched at the conclusion of the emotion we h have a cover package a few important points about the table first, it

demonstrates we're seeking a modest adjustment the artists space has never exceeded 16 thousand plus that is includes 13 thousand square feet and for the - tab b is conformation from robert donald he was sub letting secret to artists his others 8 thousand was leased to sub tenants mr. donald advised us last month our proposal to maintain the same amount of artist square footage at a residence of $2 per square feet and doubling the the pdr space there were 29 to thirty thousand square feet that is basically a reality second the table shows a turf are paying an average ever $0.85

per square feet we're subsidizing those with many low income neighborhood and employees many san franciscans it is important to maintain those buildings but both retailers will close their doors in not retrofitted and the somewhat space it essential to maintain the mixes of use given the retrofit and the need to pay the city one $.5 million in impact fees we have no more to give to keep is safe i'm going to turn it over to the owners arrest commissioners i'd like to say that during the submittal process with the planning department we have gone back several times to increase the amount of intarps dedicating to

artists and pdrs agreement we went back with more space we thought that was the negotiation so hence our current position thank you. >> from the organized opposition wants to make their presentation. >> you have a minimum of 3 speakers. >> good evening it was not my understanding we had 3 speakers since we had 5 minutes. >> and one of our previous speakers so - >> can you owen can you come up please. yeah come on up. >> okay. go.

>> go ahead. >> thank you. okay before me is the public comments from the ultimately e ultimate proposals signed i've been e-mail address a copy of this document also i have so some of the statements that were made and the previous owners those and those here, sir thank you very much those could be passed out to them some of the things that were just said are do do not make sense in their not i have more people coming up later that light bulb present more information i want to show you what the building looks like before can you see this?

>> hard work to see in the picture as you can see but in the documents calls after so this is the fourth floor and this is where all the 10 thousand square feet were created in the first place the 10 thousand pdrs space was picked specifically there because it has the requirements necessary for more fine arts work and its things marked in red was how much things were before and notice there is none now on the third floor you'll notice there is one yellow space that is the space that is being represented this is north america in the after packet the packet says after is yellow with what they'll giving now you

notice how much red marked paper there is there this shows there used to be an entire floor of arts space okay there used to be an entire floor of art space all fine arts this is the second floor there was no artists in the second floor it is short and not very well vents last day and has small light this is the first year first year has nothing on the ground floor with the artists and now given a retail space we're not insure why some of the shop people don't needs space that will be addressed in public comment by other members today the point here is that they've been more than 16 square feet

beforehand and it is fourth amendment to hear them as a those things there were several things they said were not true again, the previous space everything that is marked in red i'm not the i'm super frustrated i'm going to come back and show you the top floors that is what i want you to focus on that this plus this easily equals the entire floor easily equals an entire floor okay i'm so frustrated i'm using my losing my words we are

interested in supporting businesses in the mission we are not anti tech human beings okay. what we don't want for someone to make their money back in two years at the expense of the fabric of that neighborhood it is a working-class neighborhood they can make their money back in four years a very good price on this business on this building they got a very good price after they've spent i'm glad they're doing seismic retrofitting things are said not true in their statements. >> ten seconds.

>> okay that was the 5 minute we'll call speakers if you want to line up on that side of the room we'll keep the doors clear if i call your name we want to make sure we hear from everybody (calling names). >> whoever is ready go ahead, sir.

>> good evening commissioner i'm greg the co-sponsor we're design and prototype a communication to communicate over mobile networks since october of 2014 our workshop has been those server floor we use our workshop to design and prototype our products that is something we produced in our workshop we test and repair our products that is something we test and repair and distribute our product to consumers ore stake house is the machinery and tools we need to design our product including the audio and electronic circuit we is where testing to repair the

returned devices and distribute them to the customers from our workshop if you're interested in learning more contact me directly thank you. >> good evening my name is a allen burr the structural engineer from the retrofit the building. >> excuse me, sir, your the structural engineering of the building. >> yes. >> then your time to speak was during the project teams presentation. >> okay. >> he's part of the team. >> we'll be happen to take questions tends absolutely. >> my name is tom i'm a current tenants at the red lick building the masters lease holder for red

brick and sincere administrative studio there is 23 other artists i also pay rents that is rent as a 60 open nobody it making a profit off of it i worked with the previous landlord and renewed the lease twice and renewed the lease ones since then about rick he's been fair and trust worthy is my time up. >> no. you have seconds. >> okay they've offered mia 5 year lease with the extensions beyond that as well and in another location if 43 they need to move me and pay for the equipment that needs to be moved. >> now our time is up. >> thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners i'm the words per minute we've been in the red brick building as an 1973 seen changes in the cult and mission over the 4 decade period we're supporting both the office development and conditional use authorization both of those are critical to get a permit for the updates this is a life and safety issue without it live thrift town will be forced to vacate and close our business we've employed hedge funds we serve over 4 thousand customers providing over $300,000 in statistics and san francisco fees we might not

be the biggest employer we're an important part of the fabric of the mission district the building owners. >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> former all over the artist in the red link building displaced molly and others (calling names)

(calling names) (calling names). >> ladies and gentlemen, of the planning committee i want to pose a question what will happy if you took the majority of the third floor in the middle of a working-class area and filled it with people making one hundred plus salaries quite simply o simply you'll drop a gent indication bonds we know that or there are profits, however, i want to remind you over 3

thousand signatures were received online as petitions against those those are people that are familiar with that area and are scared to find out what will happen you can you can you can and you have the power to halt this by simply saying i you'll be realizing this gentrification bonds i know this might be predetermined consider the facts of your vote today thank you. >> it is interesting to me the idea of monoculture calm u came up this is exactly what i want to address if f this short time i wish to propose the red zone for moscone on all floors rather than handing over the entire

fourth floor to one company that is once on the fourth floor i can only go to details about the fourth floor but the third floor has the same distinct rooms you you know there is no reason we'll be rolling out the reds carpet and installing a mid company in the heart of the mission into the future forever and forever preserve the mixed use that is an awesome use of red link there were small tech startups and a construction office all mixed together with a great mucked on the upper floors keep it please. >> my name is andy have a studio on the red link i'm

against the proposal and advocate. a mixed use on all floors in addition to the art community i'm concerned about the loss of small business and the wide range of creative people that occupy the building a benefit of having smaller offices the tenants change over the years and the building changes and new connections whether artist or offices this is yet another thing that is lost from the floors are wiped criterion only assessable by secure elevator basis they're out of character with the neighborhood and sued for an office downtown a place where the community didn't have to be displaced a footprint has been established please advocate for smaller mixed uses on other

floors >> my name is corey i've lived in the mission for 20 years i walk every morning to the work to the red lick building the building is the neighborhood and the people in that are my neighbors they represent the same diverse of class in the neighborhood that i see surround it it makes me sad to know my neighbors are feeling the effects of the bigger changes in the city basing but as a opponent argue for which types of people for use they seem to be fort that plan is necessary so the owners can make that building safe maybe not a perfect plan but a good plan the longer than it is debated the longer than it is making the building safe and maybe the

building will be entry none are in the best interests the neighborhood i think the commission takes those seriously and hope they'll make primarily when making a decision thank you. >> my name is patricia i'm a long-term residents of the mission for thirty years and i just want to say i was hear here with the doma doom and saw many artists displaced and small businesses displaced and many people displaced i'm watching that all happen again but faster and with more money being flown in it is horrifically what's going on we need the artists to main that space with the mission and the city a tail about it is

about diverse indication and creativity turning it into office space will gent, if any, the area even faster and that scrubs it clean of its soul and what people love about it thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i'm tracey rosenberg from media alliance we're a democratic advocacy nonprofit and a residents of the factory what i want to say your experiencing a catastrophic loss of pdr space in the mission district it is huge it is taking an enormous toll on the vital and financial sustain time of that neighborhood your present with a false choice of

safeties verses the cat tropic loss of pdrs you have to dig deeper it is feasible to upgrade that building and maintain pdrs space that if you're told that is convenient for the developer and inconvenient for the heartache and welfare of san francisco thank you. >> okay (calling names). >> hi hi. >> my name is a kate gibson i'm a resident of oakland and previous artist in san francisco

i'm going to read a letter in may of 2013 neighbors i'm a fifth generation san franciscan and recently purchased the red lick building we plan to maintain that with the san francisco police commission for businesses we have no intention of tearing down the building or put it into condolence or change it's characters there are rumors we are going to evict our tenants this is not true with the intention the ground floor retail tenant thrift town are important to district businesses we hope they remain tenants i regret this is unfounded rumors about the future the red lick building we're confident they're provided a more positive experience for our tenants in

the future. >> that is the allusion the red lick building the reality singles it's purposes tenants in the works evicted and children's homeless network gone i have another businesses yerba buena construction gone, studio 17 artists third floor and fourth floor gone and correction evicted a and a dollar store and second floor ground factory engagement factory gourn go up he wants to make the building safe for tenants who are those companies tech companies compare those with the facts of the letter from 2013 i have the story of gentrification it is greedy according to the city

policies to zoning and land use it is unlawful and illegal. >> hi good evening, commissioners i'm with sf behavior just remember we got into this mess many, many decades we listed a board of supervisors that block all transactions what's tomorrow or next year argentine billions years from now we'll need to build more housing we can't continue the same path of listening to the idiot notion and is ramgz of members that school with weird idea to block our purpose and construction this building needs to be made

safe it is a safety issue that's the bottom line anything else is a bunch of hot air and then come upon that moving forward. >> hi i had a fourth floor studio i'm a oil paternity i used it with large window i can't work in the space people speak about natural light if you work on flurnt light it is difference there are few spaces the second floor is discussed and the ground floor has studios in the back how much light makes it back there the artists are in a position to fight the the position on the third-story they have 3 to 5

studios we does don't have power but congratulate users your protecting us we've lost we'll not be able to return thank you for your time >> good evening. i'm kay walker speaking on behalf of the gray panthers and a nature san franciscan and i've said gray panthers that's a national organization we're for social and economic justice to this point that what is happening in san francisco is horrific this is another form of displacement artists have already been treated like citizen class

citizens when in their trying to develop oh, now no a floor of 7.9 a ceiling height of 7.9 feet how can anyone create it's a motel 6 not good space we don't want more high tech i'm the nature i know what is happening in the city it. >> thank you, ma'am your time is up. >> thank you. >> your time is up thank you thank you very much. >> okay amen to that last statement i'm with coordinating and basically somebody buys the building and get to change the rules and the zoning and though people out i don't get it and you guys are coming pilot the mission has

lyft 12 percent of pits light industry we'll loss more our artists occupied 25 thousand square feet of space on top floors federal and state 1942 perfect now no light none can work in that space we don't need more tech in the neighborhood please it is already they're living here and (laughter) and with their million dollars condos can we keep them downtown where they belong the mission is a place worlds renowned for hitting it's art and artists please, please let's keep it that way yeah, they got the building for a steal now their

crying this is is retrofit why in the hell did they buy it we need to really keep the red building as artist space good for . >> thank you, ma'am your time is up. >> oh, i thought i had another minute (laughter). >> good evening my name is naomi was born and raised in the mission we need space for our communities and art and culture i'm saying that because i am representing san francisco and for me to see - to see the

parade pga by the offices it looks professional to a community where we love the culture and i've seen many things what we need in the mission is these spaces for culture, for community and not all those offices so i hope you'll reconsider your help for culture and communities. >> thank you. >> okay sorry. (calling names) >> good evening, commissioners

i'm gabriel i'm with meta agency i just want to urge you that the community got updated and recent clear information in negotiation with supervisor campos a weigh week ago we thought there were 25 thousand square feet when we went to the negotiation 16 thousand 3 thousand in the basement none on the third floor or fourth under oath where this trade shop as located we've heard about the number of displaced artist and retail and communities serving nonprofits from this space that is essentially a flip of the building it was purchased for 6 millions as a $8 million restricted i've prepared a letter h that shows hospitals on the mixed use and the compatible market they'll

actually millions a year that is more than enough. >> thank you. sir, your time is up. >> thank you thank you. >> i must submit that. >> leave that right there. >> any other speakers i've called or not called? >> hello, i'm teresa from the south of market action committee in the alliance of the cultural network in the mission for every office development that's been built there should be a study of displacement analysis for every office space what is built what is preserved, what is being displaced, what is being enhances, what who is being protected while we need in our art

community a communities art not a tax base community art that tells the story the history of the noibd neighborhood to preserve the neighborhood and those artists living in the neighborhood they live and bracket that art when we think about this we need to think about displacement at this point thank you. >> hello, i'm rick i'm a tenants and representing the red stone temple association which is a block away from the red lick building this is similar to the nonprofits individual artists and arts group we feel that if this continental use is

a direct threat to the red stone and the mix of tenants that is similar we urge you to not approve that conditional use if a precedent it set that had been worse with the gentrification displacement presidential don't approve that conditional review use hello commissioners. i'm arithmetic good friend of mine seizing is i've been a member of the arts communities for thirty years my friend a great artists one the first artists i meet in that town had her studio displaced the property owner team said only one eviction but then the woman before us read dozens and dozens of names ever artists that have been displaced so whether the term is eviction or displaced it is all the same thing artists are being displaced and the character of

this city is being hurt if you've ever ever been moved empty art so, please for the future for humanity vote against this proposal and preserve the mixed use of that building. >> hi, i'm john on i had my handouts thank you i was an artist for 10 years on the fourth floor and a residents of the mission for 15 years so i was here last week he recall several specifically telling mr. holman we're here with the same parolee scheduled that meeting just a weeks ago i think he

wanted to stall us and had the intent of no proposal i see that was a mock showing you're not familiar with that between 15 and 18 a lot of industrial businesses on the second package is the names of that them i'm running out of times i want it mention ryan labs you you can see the last package is it photo. >> my name is kate i have a studio on the fourth floor for 9 years that has a across my studios are 6 feet tall we use angles we do this to raise the painting so we can work t at the intersection on a controvertible height if you have a 6 foot

painting it he kicks it up 9 feet and the only space are 7 feet tall is yes he's offering those studios at a low price it is not what he considers the access to light and air and mr. holman is trying to spin this at least elites call it what it is it's displacing artists for tech and this is what our con don our city is watching mr. holman told you when i. >> thank you. your time is up. >> okay. any other speakers

? >> good evening, commissioners it is very clear from the testimony of the previous speakers that the holman's have been busily displacing tenants and busily been pursuing a core of action exact opposite of prop m maintaining the economic base for the industrial sector from displacement due to commercial office space if you approve that project you will be allowing them to put the final touch on this course of action and approving for tech you'll be fueling the gentrification of the neighborhood and the e rash of the deboss working-class neighborhood please reject 24

project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi tommy from the housing rights committee isle i've been a housing advocate for almost two decades now this is indeed a gentrification as the other speaker noted we know when you throw a bomb in this type of thing to throw out the working-class we know almost thousands of latino families have been displaced and artists have been displaced i remember when it had a lesbian presence if you allow this to happen more displacement it is a sure ends for this diversity we are asking you help to stop any displacement in the mission by rejecting this city belongs to all of us not just rich people.

>> hi everyone i'm sharon my art studio is around the corner if the workshop building we had 60 now less people have been displaced it is a can have trophy i'm an author in tech and write books on technical art i can do that at home, i need a studio with ventilation and toby and rick please as supporters of arts the only thing you're doing by not saying okay if you need retrofit there are funds we can tap into to get that sit down

with cast or some of the organizations and try to see if we can get some of the city funds for that but every studio that you do not replace those artists are leaving the city. >> thank you your time is up. >> thank you thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for staying and listening to us today we would like you to vote no for the conditional review for the threatens for the cultural community the san francisco our commission recently conducted a survey that will be verify what we've known for sometime san francisco