income tenants as if these weren't human lives in question. i implore you in good faith to reject this proposal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> lyla stanley with the san francisco tenants union. i've been a counselor for 7 years. the displacements we see of elderly tenants is disturbing. counsels see far too many of these every week. however, the city and county of san francisco has passed laws to make these actions less profitable and to hopefully reduce the number. the planning commission is an important line of defense to make sure the city and county of san francisco is not dereceived and that rules are followed. this subdivider has knowingly misrepresented material facts. the evidence that you've heard

is overwhelming that iris canada did live in the unit and was, indeed, evicted from the unit. for the purpose to prepare this building for condo conversion. please do not reward the subdivider who is attempting to circumvent the condo conversion laws. thank you. >> thank you. sorry. you've already spoken, sir. unfortunately, everybody has 3 minutes. is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner: thank you. so i would like to start this off by apologizing to the commission, due to a child care issue, i might not be able to stay through the vote on this. i'm going to go first to give my situation, my recommendations for what i hope we do, and then i'll watch the video after i return home. i'll start off by saying it

seems to me we're going to end with either a continuance or an intent to deny which is a continuance because we do not have a denial motion in front of us. so hopefully that's where we end up. there will be an opportunity for, you know, me to register a final vote on this at some point in the future. but to help the discussion along, i want to start off by saying normally, i love our planning staff. the city work very hard and normally for all of our cases they do excellent work, but on this one, i'm disappointed. i am -- condo conversions have a high bar for a reason. in this city, we normally like condo conversions to be amicable and clean. generally speaking, condo conversions are done when you have people who are living in a building and you buy the

building and you're seeking to convert it to condos and we want to make sure that whenever we can have it, that's it's clean, everybody agrees to it. many they stay or don't stay if that's their choice and everything moves forward. when that is not the case, there is a reason why -- there's findings we can make to deny a condo conversion. i feel that those facts, if they exist, are saleient to our decision and none of them were presented in our case file. adds a person who likes to prepare very heavily for these hearings and to really be prepared with information and then also have that added to by public comment, i'm feeling very uncomfortable and unprepared for today. i want to go through what we were presented with in our case file and then what we heard

today in public comment or what i've interpreted from public comment as well as what i have heard in the hallway right outside of our hearing just now before and phone calls earlier in the morning, which to me is not acceptable in terms of a way to present information for a commission to be able to make a determination. in the initial application, they said -- the initial application to dpw -- let me back up and say, all our case file had was an intent -- a motion to approve and, you know, a brief description of the property and a table that said what was the residency status from 2012 on with unit 2, which apparently was iris' unit, saying vacant. so if you have not heard of this case before, if you had never heard of iris and her situation and maybe like myself, i actually happened to have been in that cave with whoever else

was there, you would have no idea that any of this was happening. i had no idea, and maybe that's -- my mistake for not getting the news, but i feel like i was very much feeling blindsided by feeling this address was connected with that news story. so that's all we got, you know, and now through conversations outside, phone calls this morning, public comment today, we've learned the following, some of the things are contradictory. the initialing application to dpw said there were no evictions from 2005, but yet, apparently, there was an ellis act for everyone in the building and a subsequent lifetime agreement for iris. i don't have the evidence of -- i mean, i think we have something from dpw, but it's partial. so, again, partial evidence for all of these things. we also have no statement from dpw or the rent board to

substantiate how they validated the statement on the initial application that there had been no evictions from 2005. the residency table in our planning packet i made reference to says that the unit was vacant from 2012, but yet, the eviction that was somehow -- it gets complicated -- connected to the findings that are around 2012, iris was not in the apartment, eviction wasn't until 2017. if you say the litigation went on for 2 or 3 years, that still isn't 2012. so i don't understand how the residency table can say there was a vacant unit. but yet we also don't have proof of residency. i mean, we have statements today, and again, i'm not trying to say anyone's not telling the truth. i'm just saying, this is what we're just getting in the past

hours. there's no proof of residency. we have an article that was passed to us from march 28th, 2017, an article in the guardian, but there's no date stamp on the actual photo. i'm not calling journalists saying it's not true, but i'm looking for evidence. there was a statement from iris' grandniece she voted. she had a voting record in her polling place. that's information you can look up. you can look up where someone's vote a data, but that wasn't presented to us today. we have no evidence of the material actually gathered from the sheriff's eviction. normally there's a statement when there's an eviction and the sheriff's department goes in, some piece of paper that says there was a couch and bag of garbage or full amount. we don't have any of that today. i'm not saying anyone is saying anything untrue. we have verbal statements where some of these things can be

substantiated and she should have been in our case report because it's saleient to our decision and it wasn't. i'll continue a couple other things. iris refused to sign a condo conversion agreement a couple public comments mentioned that happened in 2015. again, there's no evidence for that one way or the other other than a statement which, again, there should be some way to substantiate something about that, an e-mail, a draft agreement, something. finally, there was also a pass up to us, a dr request in 2014 that mentions iris and her apartment, but the date is handwritten and it's not the full file. now, that one hopefully is easy. they are filed with the planning department. so we should get that. as of today, i have a typed up normal dr -- one piece of paper

from a packet with a handwritten date on top. so, you know, everything that i just mentioned is a little fuzzy. it makes me uncomfortable. it puts you on the side of if any of it is true, i mean, if any of what i just said can be substantiated, that's really challenging for the owner because, again, this is on the owner to provide accurate information, and the city to verify it because we have this high bar for condo conversions, not only to protect seniors and we have an issue with aging in place but to make sure that condo conversions are clean and amicable when they happen. i feel uncomfortable with this case. i want sub staniation for some of them. if any part of it is true, i would definitely urge the commission to do an intent to deny to re-enforce they are clean and amicable. we should be protecting our seniors who should be aging in place. death is not clean. people aren't just alive one day and then not alive the next day,

generally speaking, unless there's a tragedy. the fact she was in and out of the hospital is a normal part of the aging process. like i he had is, i've laid -- i've said, i've laid out any concerns. sounds like we're going to have to continue this even from the public comments i heard today and i'm hoping some of this will be addressed at the next hearing and i would go as far to say we should do an intent to deny so we have a denial motion in front of us. i'll stay for a few minutes and i apologies that i do have to run out in a little bit. >> thank you. i'm not going to say it again. i'm not going to beat up on staff. you and i spoke this morning. i'm not going to go through that, but i share your concerns. to me, aside from everything you just said, it's actually pretty clear-cut that unit where there's been an eviction in the last five years is not eligible for condo conversion.

there was an eviction, and it was filed. whether or not you think that the unit was vacant because her family took her to oakland whenever it irrelevant. the court case is within those last five years. you checked off the box in the application that says no evictions took place. to me, that is not true. it is clearly not true because there is an eviction filing with the court that is in that five-year period. so i will support the intent to deny today. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner: so let me just start off making a comment i think about what's going on these days. two hearings ago, we had somebody come up and want to demolish a house they had already actually demolished by lying on the building plans. they said there was a garage

there. they pasted a fake garage door on the front and submitted stuff to dbi and then it was thrown our way to have to legalize after the fact because for whatever reason, building didn't want to do it, and we pushed back on it. we had in the paper that i held up at the beginning of this hearing permitting that resulted in the destruction -- demolition of historic resource twice, once it came before us and once before the zoning administrator. we've had in the news over the past couple of years not only this issue. we've had 100-year-old woman on york street, a woman down in burlingame who was 100 who lived in her place since 1950. we have senior citizens being evicted all the time, tenants being harassed. we had carl jensen who is 93 who

was stressed out beyond belief because the construction workers were living upstairs. they were pressuring him to move out. i think i have a 94-year-old mother. i can't imagine any of this ever happening to her. i remember in 1999, around the same bubble time when you bought the building and ended up doing the ellis act, there was a building at the corner of 30th and church. i was looking for a place to buy, live. my real estate agent took me through the building. i liked unit 4, the one on the corner with the fireplace. they're still there and beautiful. they're spanish revival. it was a 94-year-old woman in it, same age as my mom. i went out to the agent and i said in the hallway, i really like the unit, but there's a 94-year-old woman in the unit. he said, well, just ellis act her. i said, you've got to be kidding

me. you don't throw anybody out into the streets. this is absolutely crazy. you know, i applaud you for doing the life estate. i really do. however, i look back at, you know, your operating in not good faith to buy the building and then within days evicting people. we don't know what happened to them. we know what happened to iris. part of me likes you. part of me doesn't like you. that's not what's before us today, you but i think it's a commentary what's going on in the city today. it kind of makes me sick. it really does. it's like, this isn't the city i moved to when i moved here. it's just, everything is so selfish and so money oriented. it's like, who cares if we trounce on people or their rights. that just is really bothering me these days where i talked to my husband about leaving the city.

so my reason for not approving this is not on how i feel about the owners or anything else, the state of the city. as i look at the planning code section 101.1. about, -- 101.1b, it does comply with abcdefg and h. as i read down -- i'm not going to go through the ones that don't apply. a and b don't apply. c applies. the affordable housing be preserved and enhanced and the answer is no housing will be removed from this project. however, tics are more affordable than condos. we know that. i own tic building in corona heights. i'm trying to sell a unit. my sights are it's like a condo, but it's not.

it's more affordable. tics are entry level housing for people. unfortunately, you know, in the past, people would do ellis acts and then buy them as tics. now, this building i own is clean. now you can't convert to condos. what's the point of buying a tic because you're in it forever. when you folks bought these units, it was fully disclosed that the building was ellis acted. so you went in knowing that this was the case. i mean, if you weren't disclosed on that, you should be suing the people that sold the building to you. d doesn't apply. e doesn't apply. if does. the greatest possible preparedness to protect against life. it wouldn't be covered because it's more than three units. and then the issue about maintain balance and -- policy

33 in the housing elements. protect affordable especially rental units. maintain balance and affordability of existing by supporting moderate ownership opportunities. go back to the tics are cheaper. so it's a better place for people to start. but the second one is, once it's condo, it's no longer under rent control. i see some of these units have been rented as recently as last year or the year before. so i'm looking at this and on balance, it doesn't meet the criteria for me. that's what i'm going to be using to decide on this. i guess i picked on number a. maybe we should have looked at -- i think we've had one of these in the past year or two, but, you know, i think we need to look fore carefully at a lot of these that we are creating less affordable, non rent controlled housing by approving these. i'm going to -- when the motion is made, i'm going to support intent to deny. >> can i ask the city attorney a

question? on the -- we were given section 1386. in it, it says -- so what are we in this process. the property owners submit an application for a condo conversion. that goes to dbw. do they review that to make sure the application is complete and accurate? i mean, it says here we're supposed to take that on our -- we're supposed to review the application and deny it if we believe the subdivider has knowingly committed incorrect information. are we the only ones that do that. one issue is, at least in its entirety before us, we have the relevant elements where it may be incorrect. but who else does that review?

>> i'm from the city attorney's office. the department of public works takes in the application information. section 1396.2 has pretty detailed definitions and descriptions. i can't tell you much detail about how much extra research public works may do on a particular application. >> the issue of whether there was -- that's where i think this whole thing hinges on whether there was an eviction or not. to me, it's clear, there was an eviction. right? so i think there's a -- i think the property owner did -- you were able to convince the court and i think the court ruled that she didn't permanently reside in the unit. you go back to -- but permanently reside is different than an eviction. i think that's where we get into

problems on this. i mean, back in 2002, you know, you exercised your right under state law and did the ellis act. i think it was -- that was a good outcome that you provided her with a life estate. whether you did it out of the goodness of your heart or there was a lawsuit or filing by who knows, but -- so you give ms. canada a life estate in the property, which i think is good. unfortunately, it didn't turn out -- after that, you know, we should have just moved along. she was able to live there and live out that life estate the rest of that property owners were able to condo the property because i think they get kind of dragged into this because of the actions. we all go -- we all go kind of on our way. she's able to stay in there. but it gets then complicated.

the facts get kind of why that happened. you know, she had to sign some document to allow for that condo conversion. she doesn't or she doesn't have to in the rest of this kind of ensues. the court's clearly opine she didn't permanently reside in the unit post 2012. whether she had the benefit of an attorney on that, but i don't think that's necessarily relevant. that's a civil matter that you had as a result of the life estate, which, again, was a civil matter, not necessarily before us. so then we've got to make this determination, which is -- we've never really been faced with this before -- that there's incorrect information on the application. i believe there is. i mean, i think it's clear she was -- she resided -- whether she permanently resided in the unit or was a part-time pennant

or what -- tenant or what the facts weren't adjudicated by the court. they took on the civil matter of the life estate, which said she had to permanently reside in the unit. so i think that's where we kind of get into this -- i think to us, if this is the intent and we're supposed to analyze whether the application is correct or they've submitted false information, i believe you submitted information that was kind of consistent with life estate in your civil agreement with her, but there was an eviction. the sheriff was called in. there was an eviction. i think you should have claimed that on the application and moved forward. whether that then was -- then it spins up to the top of that, whether the eviction occurred for the purpose of preparing it for a conversion. it ends at whether there was

incorrect information in the application. that to me is kind of the deciding factor that there was. we can't necessarily rely on what the court said based on that civil matter. i don't know who typically does this because we've never been faced with that question, whether it's dpw on the rent board or who would have advised us, but to me, based on the facts, i would support a motion of intent to deny based on that there was an eviction. >> commissioner indicate stacy in the city attorney's office. my understanding is that the department of public works does check the information pretty carefully. i don't know how much they go outside the record. what seems to be in the record is that in 2005, there was this ownership interest created with a life estate. that in 2012, a court determined after 2012 that the terms of the

life estate had not been met. what's not clear is what happened. >> but even if the terms of the life estate -- then to terminate that, it would lead to an eviction. the cause of the eviction was the fact that the life estate wasn't -- the terms of the life estate, but to me, that's still an eviction, whether the cause was the terms of the life estate weren't up held, to me, i think it's still an eviction. that should be disclosed. then the city make its determination whether that's eviction then was -- occurred for the purposes of preparing the building or these other provisions that were charged. i mean, our focus is limbed, but it's -- limited, but it's odd to me in the code. we should correct this at some point because i don't think the planning commission is the place to determine they submitted incorrect information. it is under the code, and i think they have.

>> again, this is certainly worth more research. it is possible that given the definitions under 1396.2, that an eviction is considered to be an eviction of a tenant because of the life estate and the ownership interest, it may be that dpw did not interpret an eviction as defined within that code section to have occurred. it is difficult to sort through everything that may have happened after that life estate was terminated, either physically in 2012 or by the court in 2016 or 2017. >> right. i think the court's failing there. it kind of determines the terms of the life estate which requires permanent residency, but, again, it's not the city investigating that. there was a civil matter. >> yes. it was a court determination and an interpretation of the life estate that had been granted.

>> commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i agree with the general deliberations. one things i would like to point out is that nine of the most trustworthy alliances from affordable housing in chinatown [indiscernible] et cetera, et cetera, have given credible testimony that in the time after 2012, even after 2016, they showed photos with her being in her unit, celebrating her birthday, et cetera, et cetera, including the pictures taken at that event seem to show -- they don't only come there for a picture session. it looks as though somebody lived there and that was also verified by a number of people. i would agree that the application seems incomplete, if not inaccurate. i would agree with everybody

that has spoken that from my perspective, a motion of intent to deny is where i am. i'm making that motion. >> second. >> commissioner melgar. >> i was going to make a motion. >> so the findings will have to be made, but i think that's where the commission is kind of pointing to is the fact that the subdivider presented -- the application wasn't complete and accurate. >> commissioner moore, may i suggest february 1st? >> commissioner: i think this could be next week, even if that is possible. >> well, staff would need time to draft it and then put it in the packet. >> we know better what the time frame is. >> the soonest would be would be january 25th. >> you have a calendar. you suggest and i accept what you suggest.

>> i think we're going to need time on this. >> february 1st. >> okay. >> excuse me. i think commissioner richards mentioned that the project was not consistent with planning code section 101.1 as well. so we would need to include that as one of the findings. >> i mean, that one i have a harder time justifying. again, i think that the condo conversion law is in our code. it's in our code. it had to go through a process where it complied with the general plan. i mean, when it passed, it had consistency with the general plan. i had a harder time -- i would support the argument that this condo conversion -- i think you have to make the case that every condo conversion was inconsistent with the general plan if the case is like a difference between tic units anr time agreeing to that. i mean, i think that language in

11386 is -- 1386 is clear and i would support. >> it would be up to the commission to make that -- >> there's a motion that has been seconded to for a motion of intent to deny and continue this matter to february 1st on that motion, commissioners [ all ayed ] >> item 17. for case numbers 20, 15-005788c ua. this is a condition of use authorization. if those persons leaving or exiting these chambers quietly, we could appreciate that.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. this is to legalize a massage -- 1,860 square foot at a 3 story mixed use building pursuant to 712. the property is within the nc3 zoning district and is located in the inner richmond neighborhood. it's not i retail use. the proposal involves minor tenant

improvements including an ada accessible rest room. the establishment was cited in june of 2017 after it was found that she was operating without a valid health permit utilizing a room for residential purposes keeping the doors looked during operation and keeping alcohol on the premises. the applicant has paid all fines and fees associated with these violations and the department of public health has no record of any unlawful activity at the establishment since these violations were abated. the department of public health is present and can expand. the department is received one letter of support from the land lord. 20 letters of support from nearby residents and some from nearby businesses. these are provided by the project sponsor and you have one copy included as a sample in your staff report. the department received one package with 15 i'd cool letters

of opposition and one package of 5 letters of opposition of a separate date. since it was published, the department received one additional package of 18 identical letters of opposition that can be distributed to you now for review. as the project is bound to satisfy all sections of the planning code and the general plan, the department recommends approval with conditions. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> project sponsor. you have five minutes. is the project sponsor here? welcome. >> good evening commissioners. this is the applicant. my name is arthur lieu. i'm the attorney assisting in this process. >>

[ speaking through interpreter ] >> thank you for this opportunity to give to my organization. i immigrated here from china, and i want to do everything legally. in the process of applying for this permit, i received a lot of support and help from the

departments in the city. just to summarize, from the officials, i've learned a lot about this country and i love this country and i want to do everything legally. i with like to get the permit as soon as possible so that i can conduct the business lawfully

and legally. the business has been closed for about six months, and we've been trying to comply with everything that we need to. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? any public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? >> commissioner: i don't have a problem with this project. i did notice that it is in a location that is totally suitable for medical care near like, say, the geary and 6th french campus of kaiser and whatnot. i'm in support of the project. >> is that a motion? >> i would like to make a motion

to approve. >> there's nothing further commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion, commissioners [ all ayed ] >> it passes unanimously. item 18. 1974 union street, conditional use authorization. >> is matt here? >> he is here. >> okay.

thank you. does anybody have any vacation stories? there he is. >> good evening, commissioners the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish retail use doing business at north face at 1974 union street. it's okay pied by another formula retail use doing business as lucy activewear. they have approximately 60 stores and north face has 122. this is considered an intensification of an existing retail use and conditional use authorization is required. the proposed project involves traditional retail clothing services to the surrounding community allowing the use of the ground floor retail space in a neighborhood at a similar intensity to the existing use while providing similar goods. to date. they have received a petition in support of the project as well

as a letter from the marina community association commendingment project on their outreach and partnerships. no opposition has been received. the product would not result in an existing tenant as lucy activewear is owned by the same parent company. the lucy is being phase phased: the department recommends approval with conditions of the request for conditional use authorization. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. project sponsor, welcome. >> good evening, commissioners, last but not least. i'm monica, the director of retail marketing at the north face. some of you may or may not know, we were discovered or founded in san francisco in 1966 in north beach. our first location was at the corner of columbus and broadway, and since then, we have two

other san francisco locations, one in union square and one in jackson square. we're proposing this new location to be a new concept for us. really rooted in running and training which is probably different than most of what you're used to knowing in terms of mountaineering in skiing and know. if you refer to your packet, the exterior of the store is pretty different. it's a different look and feel for us using a white logo as well as calling out union street. this concept by footprint is a lot smaller than our typical north face stores, and we're really excited to get in and start localizing and really interacting and engaging with the community, which is a really a huge portion of what this store is based on. just to give you a little bit of the skin intent of the store -- design intent of the store, we've been calling it chalk. we designed it to be an all white concept to nod back to our

heritage in rock claiming and the use of chalk as people climb big walls and as well as indoor climbing which is really relevant right now and really important to the committee with the presidio nearby as well as planet granite and lots of opportunities to be outside and active in this community. so i think that's all i have. if i can answer any questions, please let me know. >> okay. we may have some. let's first open this up for public comment. any public comment on the item? seeing none, we'll close it. commissioner richards. >> i think it's a great addition. i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> the former retail space is being filled with retail, smaller scale. union street needs that on going number of stores being there. i support that.

>> there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with commissions. [ all ayes ] >> motion passes unanimously. case number 16. 575 belvedere place. note that on december 14th, 2017, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to january 11th, 2018, by the 4-2 commissioners johnson and hillis were against. fong, you need to acknowledge you've reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> commissioner: i have reviewed. >> thank you very much. >> good evening, david lindsay, department staff.

so i was -- it was four weeks ago tonight that the commission heard the item initially, heard the staff presentation and public comment. at the end of the hearing, the commission indicated its view that the -- some of the materials were inadequate and requested that we come back with the additional materials including some existing building conditions as well as some photographs. so we have provided that to the commission. i'm happy to go through and present my -- do the presentation over again, if the commission wishes. but otherwise, our recommendation remains the same to not take dr and approve the project as revised. >> okay. thank you, mr. lindsay. project -- dr request, you have three minutes. we'll give you 3 minutes and then a 1-minute rebuttable since

we've heard this item already. >> thank you. thank you for continuing this. fog has changed as far as -- nothing has changed as far as we're concerned. our fear is that it's going to be a mansion. it opens up the possibility to an airbnb. also, we're still in a tunnel. if you look at the pictures, you'll see that our north side, we already have a building that extends out about 14 feet from the back of our house. they're going to be having an equal, if not larger extension to our south. it will be placed on a little tunnel cutting off the air and light, cutting it down. a comment was made last time about the foliage. what was not brought out is that the foal age acts as a filter.

it doesn't block light and air. the same with our shades. they're filtering shades, not darkout shades. with the two solid walls, it will be darker and less air. it's still our fear that it's going to be so large that it will be an airbnb before it's anything else. that's all i really have to say. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> good evening president hillis and commissioners. my name is daniel. i'm the owner of 575 belvedere. this is my partner. during the hearing in december, we presented the project, the changes we made to accommodate our neighbor's concerns. a positive response from most of our neighbors. now i want to address the

question that was raised about potential [indiscernible] and why we feel that this is not the most suitable solution. both calvin and i are the single child of our respecting aging parents. our parents rely on us to take care of them. we designed our home in such a way as to integrate our parents and make them feel at home together with all of us. with my parents coming from poland and calvin's parents coming from china and none of them speaking english, there is enough cultural linguistic and other barriers that make it challenging to unite our family under one roof. it barack obama only become harder if we were to create additional physical and psychological barriers by breaking our single family home into two separate dwelling

units. although we are an immigrant family coming from different parts of the world with different cultures and religiouses, we don't want to live separately, cook separate cuisines, quite the opposite. we look forward to cooking dishes in the same kitchen, sitting and eating together under one roof and at one dining table. while everyone would agree that additional housing is clearly needed in our city, we feel that in our circumstances, it's important to allow for the existing outdated single family house to be upgraded to the current standards without splitting it into separate units. we are not developers. nor are we landlords. we are just the regular hardworking san francisco family who is spending our life savings to upgrade our single family home so that it is suitable to

house a big family of ours. out of this reason, we seek and ask your support to allow the current single family home design example. >> thank you. we -- >> i have something to show. i wanted to show the design which -- overhead, please -- with the staircase that is very central in our design. it extends from the bottom of the house to the top floor, and it allows -- it's not only for the light but also for the openness on the very lowest level. if we were to create a separate adu, it would close -- >> now your time is up. the commissioners may have questions. >> thank you. a dr request, you've got a one minute rebuttal, if you choose.

>> i would mention as before, we're in favor of remodeling and improving the property. we just feel that the scope and size of the property that they -- the project they want to do is far greater than what needs to be done. thank you. >> thank you. >> dr request, you have one minute rebuttal, if you need it. >> maybe we'll start with the mid block diagram we wanted to show that our house is one of the smallest houses on the block. this house here. even with the addition, it's going to stay as one of the, you know, smaller houses. we are not extending anywhere further than most of the houses have extended so far.

i justed wanted to show also a 3d rendition that we created that show the extension of the addition hopefully commissioners you will realize that it's very, very modest extension, and it shouldn't really block any significant amount of air or light to any of our neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. we'll open it up to commissioner comments and questions. >> the package submitted answers all of the questions, which were not answered in the previous one. i appreciate the personal comments and description of the family situation, which i fully support. i am not interested in asking for [indiscernible] when the family is larger and complex situation than we normally hear.

i'm in full support. it's a thoughtfully prepared drawings and move to approve. >> second. >> with the revisions, yes. commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to not take dr and approve the manner as has been revised. on that motion, commissioners. [ all ayes ] >> so moved. commissioners, the motion passes 6-0. >> thank you. i would like to adjourn the meeting in memory of joe who passed away in december. it was a long time dog patch neighbor and advocate and just an all around fun guy. so in oner -- in honor of joe. [ end of meeting ]

>> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change

or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide

feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that

is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann - >> tenderloin is unique neighborhood where geographically place in downtown san francisco and on every street corner have liquor store in the corner it stores pretty much every single block has a liquor store but there are impoverishes grocery stores i'm the co-coordinated of the healthy corner store collaboration close to 35 hundred residents 4 thousand are children the medium is about $23,000 a year so a low income neighborhood many new immigrants and many

people on fixed incomes residents have it travel outside of their neighborhood to assess fruits and vegetables it can be come senator for seniors and hard to travel get on a bus to get an apple or a pear or like tomatoes to fit into their meals my my name is ryan the co-coordinate for the tenderloin healthy store he coalition we work in the neighborhood trying to support small businesses and improving access to healthy produce in the tenderloin that is one of the most neighborhoods that didn't have access to a full service grocery store and we california together out of the meeting held in 2012 through

the major development center the survey with the corners stores many stores do have access and some are bad quality and an overwhelming support from community members wanting to utilities the service spas we decided to work with the small businesses as their role within the community and bringing more fresh produce produce cerebrothe neighborhood their compassionate about creating a healthy environment when we get into the work they rise up to leadership. >> the different stores and assessment and trying to get them to understand the value of having healthy foods at a reasonable price you can offer people fruits and vegetables and healthy produce they can't afford it not going to be able to allow it

so that's why i want to get involved and we just make sure that there are alternatives to people can come into a store and not just see cookies and candies and potting chips and that kind of thing hi, i'm cindy the director of the a preif you believe program it is so important about healthy retail in the low income community is how it brings that health and hope to the communities i worked in the tenderloin for 20 years the difference you walk out the door and there is a bright new list of fresh fruits and vegetables some place you know is safe and welcoming it makes. >> huge difference to the whole environment of the community

what so important about retail environments in those neighborhoods it that sense of dignity and community safe way. >> this is why it is important for the neighborhood we have families that needs healthy have a lot of families that live up here most of them fruits and vegetables so that's good as far been doing good. >> now that i had this this is really great for me, i, go and get fresh fruits and vegetables it is healthy being a diabetic you're not supposed to get carbons but getting extra food a all carbons

not eating a lot of vegetables was bringing up my whether or not pressure once i got on the program everybody o everything i lost weight and my blood pressure came down helped in so many different ways the most important piece to me when we start seeing the business owners engagement and their participation in the program but how proud to speak that is the most moving piece of this program yes economic and social benefits and so forth but the personal pride business owners talk about in the program is interesting and regarding starting to understand how

they're part of the larger fabric of the community and this is just not the corner store they have influence over their community. >> it is an owner of this in the department of interior i see the great impact usually that is like people having especially with a small family think liquor store sells alcohol traditional alcohol but when they see this their vision is changed it is a small grocery store for them so they more options not just beer and wine but healthy options good for the business and good for the community i wish to have more