you very much, and our meeting is adjourned. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: commissioner moore and commissioner dennis is present. we do expect commissioner fong to be absent today. first on the agenda is case number 2017-the nx. at 150 executive park boulevard. a design review was originally

proposed for continuance to october 18th, 2018. it is now proposed for continuance until october 25th , 2018. item number 2 at green street. discretionary review as proposed for continuance until november 29th, 2018. further commissioners under the regular calendar. items 13 a and b. at 3140- 315,016th street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to november 15th, 2018. that comes from the project sponsor i have no other items proposed for continuance. >> president hillis: thank you apologies for getting started late. we had a closed session before this that went longer than we expected. any public comment on the items being proposed for continuance including a 1013?

i have one speaker card. but if others would like to speak, now is your opportunity. >> i've never done this before. so i missed what you said. the continuance date. >> clerk: october 25th. >> president hillis: it is different then what is on your agenda but it is october 25th, 2018. that is all i have. >> president hillis: thank you any additional public comments? >> quickly, good afternoon president hillis and commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor of green street, although we are disappointed, we are not proposing this continuance. the project was scheduled for a hearing in june and was continued then. we did not oppose it at that time. the d.r. requester has requested these continuances -- it was our

hope in agreeing to the continuances we could meet with the d.r. requester and have him talk with us about his concerns in an attempt to come to some sort of compromise. we have offered numerous times to meet with his engineers, attorney, architect, but he has refused. he will not even have a conversation. this project was being considered for a hearing in february of this year. but the d.r. requester appealed the project's categorical exemption. this is highly unusual given the project is a small rear addition staff reevaluated the project and came to the same conclusion. there are no impacts and issued a new proposal. we support the project and have recommended proposal -- -- approval as proposed. >> president hillis: you know we are just hearing whether to continue this or not? >> yes. i would just, in addressing the continuance, we asked that the

commission help us to set up a meeting with the d.r. requester and try to work out a resolution to this project. you can imagine how frustrating it has been for my client, providing additional architectural and engineering studies for this. he paid $15,000 in staff time for the second categorical exemption. we ask that this be the final continuance. it will be heard on november 29 th and hopefully we can set up a meeting with the d.r. requester. >> president hillis: thank you any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? seeing none, we will close public comment. his. >> commissioner koppel: move to continue these items to the dates specified. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved. that passes unanimously. the zoning administrator, what

say you on item 13 b.? >> continue to the date specified. >> clerk: thank you. that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed under here i consider to be retained by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there'll be no separate discussion of these items unless the public or staff or the commission his request and then the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item three is conditional use authorization. for green street. conditional use authorization in item five, 733 tera vale street. conditional use authorization. i do have to watch what speaker 14 item three for lower --

lorette miners. and item for. i see you are in support of all of these projects. do you still want to pull them off of consent to speak to them? >> president hillis: all right is there any other members of the public or commission who would like to pull any of these items off the consent calendar? seeing none, we will close public comment. his. >> commissioner koppel: move to approve items 3-5. >> second. >> clerk: sect -- thank you, commissioners. on that motion. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved. it passes unanimously and places us under commission matters. item six is commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: a couple of weeks ago i attended a historic preservation commission meeting and realized, in the

course, there are lots of items we share in common, concerning, you know, we talked about things being historic and what the plan is for the city. i urged the historic preservation commission to request a joint hearing with us. we have not had one since i have been a commissioner. the unanimously did and i hope that we can schedule one soon. >> president hillis: all right i think we can do that. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i appreciate the department his memo updating us on diamond street. i appreciate the update. another issue, the governor did not sign senate bill nine '05 -- 905 allowing bars to stay open between 2:00 am and 4:00 am. it is an interesting discussion

when we move forward, considering its application in san francisco. >> president hillis: thank you >> clerk: seeing nothing further, we can move onto department matters. item seven is directed's announcements. >> no new announcements today. >> clerk: board of appeals and historic historic preservation commission review. >> good afternoon. first on the land use agenda, where the landmark and conservation district amendments related to the central soma plan the seven different ordinances with landmark three individual buildings to create a warehouse historic district and emission conservation district. it would designate various properties as significant or or contributory under article 11. at the land use hearing, there was one speaker during public comment and no comments or questions from the committee members. all seven of the items were forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. next, we heard the india basin

general plan amendment and zoning map amendments and the development agreement. during the hearing, there was an hour of public testimony, roughly evenly split between those opposed and those in favor after public comment, the discussion amongst the supervisors was regarding the developed agreement on and the affordable housing program. supervisor cohen introduce a proposed amendment that would require the affordable units be provided in tears at a 55% a.m.i., 80-110% a.m.i. and 140% a.m.i. after discussion, they voted to move the three action items as amended to the full board as a committee report without a recommendation. next, we considered amendments to the central soma plan continued from the july 23rd land use hearing pick this commission heard the amendments to the plan on september 27th and voted unanimously to approve the amendments with modifications. there are -- there were about 20 public comments covering a range of topics including support for

restoring the funding for the old mint at $20 million, calls for an additional additional anti- displacement policies or residents, small businesses and nonprofits within the plan and more broadly. the desire for greater quantity and more accessible open space including request that future open spaces serve youth and families and feedback from the flower margin vendors who oppose seeing residents of the developed on the site due to conflicts in operations. supervisor kim responded to some of the public comments describing potential ways of increasing affordable housing including evaluating existing jobs and housing linkage fee and considering legalization of live work laws. she introduced several amendments that included most of the planning commission recommendations and indicated there would be additional amendments at the next hearing on october 15th. the committee voted to approve the additional amendments and continue the plan to october 15 th. yesterday the government audit and oversight committee held a hearing on the civil grand jury report issued earlier this

summer on a.d.u. and modular housing. the jurors themselves presented overall findings and planning d.b.i. fire and moh offered presentations responses to the reports that were published last month. in response to the report, the various city agencies agreed to review our code and provide recommendations to the board by april of next year. we also agreed to continue interagency meetings to facilitate more streamlined permit review and planning will begin outreach to design professionals and two single-family home owners by year's and. the supervisors were required to respond to the report as well. they adopted a resolution to have planning and legislative budget office analyse fees from a.d.u. projects. supervisor peskin made a friendly edit to the draft resolution that was more in line with planning findings that overall construction costs are a larger barrier for homeowners then permit fees, as the jury

found. supervisor kim recommended better coordination between departments for data tracking. this was continued and the follow-up hearing is anticipated in six months. at the full board to, first on the agenda was the appeal for the conditional use authorization for 143 corbett avenue. the applicant and the property owner were able to come to an agreement with the help of supervisors resulting in the appeal being withdrawn. as a result, there is no public comment and the board voted to uphold this commission's approval. next was the appeal for the final e.i.r. for the india basin project. unfortunately, the airport slipped or submitted -- the air board submitted new mitigations. they did not have time to fully digest and evaluate these new proposals for the environmental appeal had to be continued. the board continued the item to october 22nd to provide more time for analysis. because environmental appeal for the project was continued, to three india basin action items were also continue continued. that concludes my report.

>> president hillis: thank you anything from the board of appeals or historic preservation >> clerk: they did not meet last night but they will be back in action next week. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here to share with you a few items from the historic preservation commission hearing. as i know you know -- as i know calculate photos. i am passing out a couple of examples of the presentation that staff gave regarding this year's cycle. there is a -- i believe there are six applications that were before the commission. all were approved unanimously and will move forward to the full board and the government audit and oversight committee for consideration. properties included were part of the hayes valley and california registered district. the conservation district, the landmark district, webster street landmark district and a few others. also of note, the commission

reviewed a revised application for the 2019 cycle. this is based on comments provided by the government audit and oversight committee around making the program more accessible to the general public the commission overall was supportive of the proposed amendments that staff has produced. i have a copy of that application to share with you. and the two items of note are, one is we have outlined qualifying, a list of qualifying scopes of work to make it very clear to the public about what types of work that could qualify and then second, to provide more clarity in the process and to align more with the city possess broader goals. there are now priority consideration criteria which include necessity, investment, distinctiveness, recently designated city landmarks, and properties that house legacy businesses. the government audit and oversight committee will review

these amendments when they are reviewing the rest of the applications later this year. we hope to have this application go into effect in january of 2019. finally, the commission also renewed its delegation of minor scopes of work. these are projects that -- will be routine in nature and with delegates that work back to staff level approval so a public hearing is not required. those staff level approvals are still appealable to the board of appeals and the board of supervisors or to the historic preservation commission depending on what is being appealed at the -- at the time. two items to note, they have expanded or included in the delegation a delegation is façade restoration and the second is the conversion of garages to an a.d.u. to expedite the process. as long as those projects are adhering to the a.d.u. design guidelines, the commission felt

that staff is well-equipped to review and approve those types of projects. that concludes my report. unless you have any comments. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner richards? spee h. just one question. interestingly enough, 587 morris street, it applies to façade restoration as well? >> that is correct. >> commissioner richards: that is interesting. thank you. >> clerk: if there is nothing further, we can move onto general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i do have the one speaker card. >> president hillis: hello. >> did you want that? or is that for them? good afternoon. i will talk today about

adjusting -- here is a letter for you. you have done a fabulous job with montcalm and states and alvarado and even cried mont. those sights, plus the ones reported on by mr dineen and the chronicle are all one part of a continuum. by the other part of the continuum, all these over here, or what is on the back of that letter that is being handed out. just to explain the letter, i will put it on the overhead. i think i give you enough. may i have the overhead, please? there has been a whole bunch that i have talked about since 2015. in january of 2015, i sense the commission and e-mail and it had some projects on there which are the ones -- of the overhead is not on but that is ok. on your letter you can see them

they're. it is this group here. that i sent you in january, 2015 by december of 2015, thanks to commissioner richards, there they are. we had a meeting. and there was a sample of five and they are the ones in red on the back of the handout. forty brick -- and 40% of those were determined to be ready for demolition. so that's what happened back then. since january 2015, we had a whole other list. a whole long list of what i surmised should be demolition. and i think i based it on certain design characteristics such as façade removal, vertical expansions, major to full lot excavations, completes -- complete interior getting any combination of demolition and new construction occurring at the same time. so i think that they should

qualify. as you know, 317, master plan, existing housing is affordable housing and that was the whole point of 317 back in 2007. one of the points when they approved it. i want to say, some of these on the list are basically mergers, unit mergers. but some are demolitions too. as the design has suggested, you could adjust the demo calculations. to illustrate what i'm talking about, if i can have the overhead again, please. this is the house prior to january 2015. in -- and in late 2014. here it is january 2015. here it is february 2015. new construction and demolition.

here it is when it sold for $5.7 million. they asked $4.9 million. the point i want to make. >> president hillis: miss -- >> 2012, it was sold for $1.3 million in three years later, it was $5.7 million. >> clerk: your time is up. >> i'm done. i know. >> president hillis: is or any other general public comment? >> please adjust the demo accounts. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i work for the ocean avenue association community benefit district. i would like to talk to you a little bit about the theater at 1970 ocean avenue. there is a new ownership within the last couple of years and they've been working on a plan to develop the property.

of course, the theater building is the -- is a city landmark. so the development plan has come along in a way that we really are pleased with. it involves the complete renovation and restoration of the theater to its 1930s original interior and exterior, keeping that wonderful tower that is a real -- it is a landmark of our neighborhood and it has a physical presence that defines the street. the plan is to build 42 housing units on the parking lots at the back of the property and then to rehabilitate the inside of the theater with a green room, dressing room, making this -- establishing the capacity for what could be a great arts or theater use in the future. the goal would be something like

a castro theater. but of course, that will depend on the operator. that is further down the line. i just wanted to put this on your radar and let you know that the plans are coming up and will be submitted at some point soon in the future. and the developer has been making the rounds at our meetings and at other neighborhood group meetings and generally, the people are quite excited in the neighborhood with the possibility of the theater building being restored. the other thing i would like to add is the plan for the retail spaces looks really good. that is one of our primary concerns with the ocean avenue association. there is these large opportunities. two wings of retail and they can be easily divided into a lot of spaces or one of them can be a big space for a large restaurant

say, that would be ripped complementary to a theater use or something like that. so the flexibility of the plans, the scope of them, is really exciting for us. that is it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you , very much. any additional general public comment? if there is anybody else who would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. it helps us. >> is there an indication of the property of the 42 housing units -- where is it located? i want to know if it is nearby the harbour basically. >> president hillis: which project are you referring to? >> the 42 housing units. how are we going to fund it. this is my money. i sit in that chair as the chair so we need to understand why i am here so we can focus on

parallelization of what we intend to do. at this point i am focusing on the financial means from 2016. where is it going? i want the board, who is here now, i am ordering you to put my wealth back in my name. have my wealth on accessibility coming to me. so that must be done today so we can adjust our financial institution. as i identified, so far, what i acquired this morning, was excessive amount, which is $1.6 million. and then again, it is $2.5 million. where is it funding?

and then the $9.9 million, where is this money going? what is the intent? the interest value does not show any profit. when we utilize a large amount of money for a purpose of the funding for a better san francisco, and to make it better , including the homeless. where is the incentive to it? will we build homes and allow those to accumulate high increase use of excessive taxing i see so much money, but where is the product introducing . it is a futile concept.

it does not serve a purpose of anything. i am still on welfare because i can't get access to my financial means. i want this board to initiate my order, now. i want that bank to take every name off and so no one has any accessibility until it gets into my name. we will utilize it in the financial institution. this is not only in our city. it is important that we focus on how life is today. >> clerk: thank you, your time is up. >> there is no purpose to utilize my wealth for futile concepts. i will find this project. >> president hillis: thank you , very much we appreciate your testimony. thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. thank you.

can i just asked a follow-up on the comments on where we are with the entire follow-up from d.b.i. and the demolition ordinance. staff has discussed internally the demo limits. can you give us a brief update? >> yes. following our joint hearing it with the department of building inspection several months ago, we worked closely with supervisor peskin's office and they have really taken the lead in trying to develop a more comprehensive solution to our demolition controls. we have been consulting with them closely. at this point, there is not a firm proposal that i am aware of ready to come back with, but i feel we are progressing and hopefully close to being able to come back to you guys with a more concrete proposal then where we were if you want -- a few months ago. as of right now, we have not been discussing adjusting the tantamount demolition controls. but i know it is something that has been coming up significantly during public comment and that

the commissioners have been talking about it a lot. we would look to your direction to see if that is something you guys would like incorporated in that effort, as well. >> president hillis: ok. thank you. >> commissioner richards: two things. we have been kind of waiting on them saying for us to go do something, pending what we think is imminent legislation being proposed. i know commissioner moore and i are very interested in that. may be a follow up with supervisor peskin's office to understand where that is would be helpful. the other one issue is, i think the dimension missing on your list, and i really appreciate the comprehensiveness of it. how many of these were actually called into the enforcement team as potential 317 demolitions? if you could provide the list and the outcome, that would really be helpful at some point. >> president hillis: thank you we can move to the regular calendar.

>> clerk: very good. item nine. obstructions and required setbacks for yards and open space. this is a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm from those of planning departments. i also have with me liz who you just spoke to you and someone who has been helping me with the project and has been very integral to the process. they are here to answer any questions you may have, as well as myself. i will be giving a presentation on the proposed changes to section 136.

there it is. the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to permit some obstructions in section 136 and to allow bay windows that do not meet the standards of section 136 to apply for a zoning administrator waiver. it outlines a type of obstructions that may be permitted over streets and alleys and and required rear yards, setbacks and open space. [please stand by]

when a building permit is

filed, if it has bay window proposals that do not meet the standards, the zoning administrator would weigh in whether or not those were appropriate in context. so to give you the timeline of our proposed changes, we've had several -- well with, we first brought this to you in may, and at that hearing you requested we take this to the community and we also take this to the historic preservation commission, which we have done. our first community meeting was held at the planning department on september 5th. the tenor of the comments involved ensuring there would still be an appeal avenue under the new process for allowing bay windows that don't meet the standards of section 136, and that answer is, yes, there will be an appeals avenue, although the variance would, obviously, not be able to be appealed, because it would not exist. you would still be able to file a d.r. where applicable, an appeal to the board of appeals

where applicable. all of these processes would remain unchanged. in regards to the september 12th meeting, the board of the district 6 community planners stated they are in support of the proposed update to planning code section 136 because they feel that streamlining these codes will help to simplify the adherence to this piece of the code and maintaining the historical values of san francisco design, while keeping in context with the seismic restraints is essential to maintaining the diversity of design the city is famous for and the code changes will help to achieve that balance. and finally at the historic preservation commission, voted unanimously to recommend the board of supervisors recommend the ordinance to exist in san francisco. many of these designs additionally assist in increasing the environmental sustainability of buildings.

the design review process will continue to be enforced. further, amendments to the bay window requirements would need to be reviewed by the zoning administrator. the design review process for bay windows will continue to ensure only projections of bay windows of the highest design will be allowed, further enhancing the city's physical surroundings. that concludes my report, and again, both myself, maya, and liz will all be available for questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. public comment, i have two speaker cards. david and ross. >> hello, commissioners, i'm david gast. resident of the city for 40-some years. i'm an owner of a house and i'm an architect with my own practice, gast architects, for

38 years. i'm here to support the changes to the planning code that are proposed by staff and brought to you today. both items greatly increase the flexibility that's needed to design the codes as they are written or largely written in response to victorian buildings that allow changes that responded to the victorian context. we don't quite live in victorian times now and we need to look at buildings in a wider perspective than that. and we want to put forth that for the neighbors and other people who are concerned about what's going on, the r-dat will still be reviewing projects and u-dat will be reviewing projects. urban design teams and residential design teams, which will be looking at the projects from a wider perspective than just the zoning ordinance itself. changing the allowable overhead projections does allow for much more flexibility in design to create buildings that are much

more responsive to the neighborhood context, it allows us to create buildings that are responsive to the energy needs and energy conservation, and allows us to provide privacy between units by vertical, as well as horizontal appendages. and bay window regulations, again, were put forth largely within context of edwardian buildings in the city. the regulations -- changes to those regulations don't fit within the variance findings that need to be met. more flexibility is needed on that. i'd also point out that for small projects, the variance process is ridiculously time consuming and costly. i've a variance that's going to the planning commission -- to the zoning administrator in february that was requested six months ago.

it will take the zoning administrator staff to make a letter of determination, talking half a year, three-quarters of a year for a tiny project and one that doesn't need the level of staff review that's involved in this process. and the fees that are involved in that also are considerably more costly than the results are coming forth. and your staff has challenged that it is now to be able to deal with all the responsibilities that are put upon them, as well as you with commissioners, and i think you could spend your time more profitably dealing with higher priority projects than this. thank you. i have a petition here, which i put forth this morning at 10:00, there are 18 names in support of the project. thank you. >> president hillis: great, thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president hillis and commissioners.

my name is ross levy. i'm an architect and a resident of san francisco. i am also here to speak in support of this proposal from the planning department. i think that i'm quite enthusiastic to hear that the department feels that updates to suit the contemporary requests are supporting the diversity of design in this city, and this is famous for its diversity of design. i'm also thrilled to hear the planning department suggest innovative design enhances the surroundings. i also agree this is good for our city. this is consistent with the demands of our current energy desires and our environmental aspirations. it reduces a backlog, it empowers city staff, and more than anything else, it's common sense streamlining. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. levy. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public

comment. commissioner moore? >> thank you everybody for working on this. we've struggled with this for many, many years and this is a very straight forward piece. the only thing i would like to ask is that your new guidelines also provides a clarity of diagrams by which you explain the old ones. i think that would make it a lot easier, particularly when commissioner said we should never get a d.r. on behalf of that subject matter, but otherwise, i think this is a perfect step in the right direction. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: thanks to the two members of the public that came in support of staff. great work, staff. this city does have its older, more historic design buildings, which have a visual appeal, but also we're trying to be a little more conservationist these days with our energy efficient buildings, which are on the more function side, so motion to approve. >> second.

>> president hillis: thank you. >> secretary: we have a motion and second to approve this matter. on the motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. places on items 10-a and "b," 2101 lombard street special use district, this is a zoning map and planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. diego sanchez with planning department staff. today i'll be presenting an ordinance to amend the zoning map and planning code amendment, however, before i begin, i'd like to provide jack gallagher of supervisor stefani's office

time to present to you. >> good afternoon. commissioners, jack gallagher with supervisor stefani's office. this proposal was brought forth by then-supervisor farrell well over six months, eight months ago. the proposal was to rezone the corner of fillmore and lombard to open up the options for property owners for proposal. currently, jeff rose, who's here, is the project sponsor. they've been kind of penciling out different proposals for this site and with a rezone can open up some certain proposals for different mixed-use options. and with rezoning the lot for a slight height increase and for the possibility of different types of retail on different floors. we thought this would be a good way to kind of revitalize that corner and that lot, since it's been a couple different

restaurants in the past, and we think this proposal can kind of lead to a good project in the future. so this is only step one. this is just rezoning the lot. this is not the physical project, so there are no schematics for a project right now. they've been looking at housing for the site or even possibly a hotel at this corner. there are other hotels on lombard street, so a hotel could work in that corridor, but we just thought with rezoning, it would help the project sponsors with putting up a proposal that could fit the neighborhood and when that proposal is put forth, a larger community effort would be made to talk to different neighborhood associations and all the different neighbors there about the proposed project, so this is kind of allowing us to go towards that step, because as of right now, the space is kind of limited in what you could put on the space or put at that space, so we ask

for your support and if you have any questions regarding it, the project sponsor is here to ask maybe what could potentially go there in the future, but if you have any questions that i could help with, happy to answer. >> president hillis: we may. let us hear from staff and then if there's any other public, and then we'll circle back. thank you. >> commissioners, the department supports the overall goals of this ordinance, allowing new locations for retail uses and allowing building heights to increase in proportion to the ground source ceiling heights. our synergistic strategies to track new commercial activity. the lombard street context is also amenable to such changes. further adding conditional use authorization requirement for upper story retail use also assures that livability concerns like noise and refuse can be addressed through the standard conditions of approval for c.u.s and as always specific conditions of approval can be tailored for particular concerns, should they arise.

staff is proposing a couple of modifications. first is to clarify in the s.u.d. that limited restaurants and restaurants are still principally permitted at the first story, and the second, a bit more substantiative, to study the upper story land use controls along lombard street. one last item, i received the following e-mail yesterday regarding the ordinance, and i'm providing that to you now. it's in addition to what was in the packet earlier. this concludes my presentation, and we're here for questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. we'll open this item up for public comment. >> hi, thank you. not familiar with this process. how much time do i have roughly? >> president hillis: three minutes. >> okay, great. i live half a block from this proposed development, and i understand this is just a modification of something, it's already approved, but i do want to speak on of what of those of us that live on this block near

where the proposed development is. first, i never got a notice about this, i happened to hear about it from a neighbor who knows some of the sponsor of the project socially, so that's the only reason i know about it. i have lived there, lived here, for eight and a half years raising two children nearby, and myself and most of my neighbors would like to go on the record against any expansion of a commercial project that involves serving of alcohol. there's already a huge density of such establishments within a one-block radius of our block, and generally it's not been a problem, but, you know, most recently about four years ago a bar called jaxson opened up and the patrons have been a problem nearly every weekend, and until that gets resolved, i am and

most of my neighbors are against any expansion or any project whatsoever that serves alcohol. the following has been observed, and i have pictures if i have time, but nearly every weekend someone, a patron of this bar, urinating on one of our properties, on the sidewalk, parked cars, or on the street, sometimes in view of my children. this has happened in multiple occasions, i've even seen women doing this, which is incredible, and i have pictures, which i can send. patrons vomiting, this is a little less frequent, always on one of our driveways. drunk patrons using our front stoops to hang out after last call. patrons so drunk that ambulances have been called. illegal recycling collections by trucks blocking the street, making loud noises at late hours. illegal keeping of garbage bins 24/7 in full view of the streets, been for four years they haven't solved this problem, which attracts folks who dig through the cans and litter on the street. nothing's been done about that.

they allow plastic bottles and cups to be left out on the street, littering on the street, not cleaning up on a regular basis. they allow patrons to leave the bar with plastic cups in their hands, i can't imagine what's in there, allowing inebriated patrons to congregate and loiter in groups and residents and myself and my wife have been threatened by patrons when attempting to foil behavior. so i want to go on record so you know this is what's been happening for the last four years on this block, and we'd be, therefore, opposed within that context any development of a business serving alcohol. we're pro residential, commercial businesses, absolutely, but without this current long-running problem being addressed -- >> president hillis: all right, sir. >> we're absolutely against it. i have pictures to support everything. >> president hillis: you can e-mail them to us. >> okay. >> president hillis: or submit them if you have them, but looks like they are on your phone, so you can certainly e-mail them to

us. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment on this item? pull the mike closer to you, sir. >> great. is the indication of the property ownership that has been recently through 2006 to this day purchased. i am the true titlement owner of it. again, they put it in family and other names, family of family, and i'm in the process of trying to acquire it back. so the important thing is, when i acquire it back, then we can reform the housing situation and it will serve a better purpose, and it would also be a tax reduction and it would serve what i need the board to do --

is to -- doesn't happen, sir. what i need you to do is i'm going to allow you to commence another order and to acquire the property under the public realtor and all property realtors that are being -- selling my homes, to put back -- gregory williams. putting it in my niece's name, but unfortunately -- something happened and now i got to get it in my name. and it is important that we focus together, because again, i am the one that's going to make the changes with those who understand the significance of the beginning of the governship. it's legal and that's why. the important thing is, the property ownership, we must make sure that it is authentic. we are going to identify the data, ink, and fibers of the

documentation and we must make sure city hall secures our institutions, receipts of data in regards to the tax payment and the tax late payments, which have been very large, and i have identified it, so we must make sure we secure our -- under the law of maritime, we must have it on documentation and on website data. that's two types of security purposes, and that measures the appropriate standards to secure it in the vault. you will not -- [ bell rings ] -- daily utilize the importance to take from the website the data secured every single day so it doesn't get tampered with or missing any type of data that is highly secured. so, in that sense, going to give -- entrust this board to do

what we need to do in order to acquire the advancement of the betterment to correct this country. [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: thank you very much, sir. thank you. any additional comment on 2101 lombard? >> good afternoon. planning commission members, today i am speaking on behalf of the occupants of 2129 lombard street, mr. tobias hampton, an 18-year resident, myself, amanda scott, a 12-year resident, and the owner of the building, tom mara, 40-plus-year owner and resident. as neighbors directly adjacent to the 2101 lombard street in the marina, we wholeheartedly object to the proposed rezoning application. we are all in agreement that approving the aforementioned application request to increase the height of the building by

ten feet to four stories would be a measurably detrimental to all of our quality of life and our neighborhood as a whole. presently there are 30-plus hotels or motels within one-block radius of -- sorry, within one-block radius of van ness -- i'm sorry, one-block radius on lombard between van ness and the presidio. additionally, there are 40-plus bars in the marina basin. lastly, there are over 100 restaurants in the marina basin with liquor licenses. as a result, there is no apparent or legitimate need for a hotel or motel, bar, or restaurant at that specific location. furthermore, the proposed four-story hotel and rooftop bar deck and lounge would be directly adjacent to my dining room, as well as our bedrooms. it would also completely block

100% of both of our east-facing windows, and the building would cast a shadow over our entire roof deck and our southern exposure. moreover, the open rooftop bar, restaurant, and lounge would also drastically impact and diminish our quality of life. as an open rooftop/restaurant that could serve from 8:00 in the morning until closing time of 2:00 a.m. would be a constant nuisance and create constant noise pollution. we know where we live. we live over a bar, we live next to a beer garden and adjacent to another bar, jaxson, but we don't want a bar above our heads. we don't want to physically be surrounded by bars, and you have the opportunity to stop that from happening. therefore, as long-term residents and property owners, we request the rezoning of 2101 lombard street be denied as the proposed rezoning would cause an

immeasurably negative impact to all existing residents, basically allowing our neighbors to reconstruct the site and make it into a hotel, bar, and lounge would not benefit lombard street, the marina, the neighborhood, or the residents of san francisco. although we are in favor of new development and growth and do not support the rezoning of 2101 lombard street -- [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: thank you. >> -- i cannot endorse this project and we'd express and ask you do not, as well. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? and if the property owner/project sponsor is here, now is a good time, if you'd like to talk. because it's not the project before us. you can talk about the rezoning and public comment also. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to answer some questions if you have any, but since it's not a specific project and we're still kind of working through what may or may not work at the site, i might

not be able to answer all your questions right now. as you're probably well aware, all this allows us to do is advance the conversation and meet with our neighbors and the community at large if and when we decide to move forward with the project and if and when we decide what that project's going to look like. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. we may have questions. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thanks. so i just want to thank the members of the public for coming out and sharing your experience of living in the neighborhood and i'm sorry to hear about some of the issues you've had with neighboring bars. i do want to just mention that if you are noticing that the patrons of a particular bar or area are really giving you trouble, the entertainment commission might be a commission you might want to get in touch with. to talk about what that bar can do to mitigate some of those issues that you've brought up.

you know, as has been said, what is before us is not a specific project yet. it is really kind of a move to allow options on this parcel, and so i would say that there absolutely will be an opportunity for community members to be part of the process of development going forward, and i know that there are lots of folks from planning departments to the supervisor's office that will be part of that process, so i am generally supportive of this, but would love to hear what my fellow commissioners think. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> i would agree with commissioner johnson that this is, indeed, a forward-looking idea. no particular project, no combination of uses has been proposed except the ability to design a slightly more

appropriate project in this particular corridor. it is a corner location. it has attributes of multi-use and the form that is missing in the corridor. i have experienced over the year as a neighbor being very responsive with a very strong voice of their own of what they find desirable in the development and completion of the corridor, so i believe that what we're trying to do here is beneficial to the process of bringing a good project, an appropriate project, forward in its time. so i'd move to approve with modifications that the department is read into the record. >> second. >> president hillis: mr. sanchez, if i could just ask you a question on this. seems like all we're doing, all we're being asked, and i want to clarify and have you state on the record is allowing the additional five feet on the ground floor. there was a member of the public that talked about ten feet. >> it's five feet. >> president hillis: okay, five feet only on the ground floor. actually, the allowance of a restaurant or a bar would basily