>> good afternoon. my name is stefan. i am an interior designer and i've also lived on opera terrace for 17 years. my partner and i moved into the area 17 years ago. we have always known that this property would be developed. in my personal business, i come across developers all the time. we work with them left and right with many quick projects. very rarely do i come into it project with a group of developers who are responsive to the community. they want to go the extra mile. eighteen meetings with the community. you cannot ask for more than that. also, they are taking a step to better the community, not only their own properties, but they are looking at -- it has been committed to put funds towards development of the community and the community area that is currently in need of help. i want to say i completely hope you would sponsor the project. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i am the president of the neighbors kick it has been almost four years since we learned about dawson and clinton mount olympus project. the initial design called for five dwellings averaging over 10,000 square feet. the five dwelling is turned into ten. each every 5300 square feet. over time, the size has receded. several weeks ago, they approached me and offered to reduce the size to an average of just over 3600 square feet, if we accepted that, they would throw in community benefits for the green spaces in the amount of $50,000. these funds would be kept in an fbo for benefit of account under dawson and clinton's name and receipts would be submitted for them for garden work done and a, would be issued for that amount. within a week, both the board

and the membership overwhelmingly approved accepting the proposed final square footage reduction. the board was split about accepting community benefits funds. the full membership was completely in favor of accepting funds and accepting the square footage reduction. we don't believe the financial part of this agreement should have any bearing on the project itself. i just like to point out that the latest project proposal would be identical whether or not we accepted the benefit. we acknowledge this is a difficult site. we would have preferred doubled the housing on the site and half the square footage, what we feel that at this point, after fighting for almost four years, this is the best we will get. for this reason, the membership has come to a position of non opposition. last i would like to add that the process of dealing with proposed development for residents is becoming increasingly unbearable. our options are limited. cost is high and eventually we are worn out. the argument that a family of four requires 4-5,000 square feet is made with a straight face. we are then accusatory done much

needed housing if we do sense. we become the villains and then people need to seek smaller contextual residences in our neighborhood. the system is long overdue. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a member of the board of the neighbors. the points that i wanted to add is we reach out to 110 members. corporate heights as a neighborhood along the lower part of corbett. all of the members are probably within 2-4 blocks of the site in question. we uphold all members on the new opposition position on november 9th and then on november 17th . overwhelmingly, one whole was

over 90% and they are in favor of taking a no opposition today. and the other pole was over 70%. that is getting response rates back from bulk e-mails of, it was close to 30% of all of our members that got back to us. that is a good coverage of the neighborhood true, there were some out liars that would like to see things differently. but a large majority of the neighbors have been following and have enjoyed the information that has been shared and that opposition on this. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners

i am the treasurer of the corbett heights neighborhood and i have been lived in the neighborhood for 41 years. i would like to make two points. gary who is the president is acting independently from the chn board. he does not represent chn's november 14th, 2018 vote on issues related to the mount olympus project. the board has not seen this letter of nonopposition or have we seen the binding agreements that was mentioned here today. according to d.m.c., he has accepted $50,000 in cash for some yet unidentified community benefits. the board does not know the content of the agreement nor the arrangements or acceptance of these funds. he has refused to place any funds if received with a fiscal sponsor of the park his alliance or within our treasury to assure accountability and compliance. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> i am a longtime member of the board of corbett heights neighbors pick a genuinely hope that i would not need to stand up and testify today. i am here only to speak to a factual matter. i'm not here to advocate what you do on the project. i have a new question developed. i want to note that on november 14th of this year, the board of corbett heights neighbors had a regularly scheduled meeting. at that meeting, seven of the nine members of the board participated. there was a motion to pass relative to the board's position on this project. by a vote of 5-1 a. accepted what was described to us as the promise of the developers to reduce the square footage from approximately 400 --dash 4100 to approximately 3600 square feet per unit as it was explained to us. secondly, the board educate -- indicated that they did not seek and would not accept the

contribution fund of community benefits. in conjunction with their position and finally at that time, the board wanted to support the e.i.r. appeal. i understand that has become moot. you have heard many times about community poles and neighborhood organization poles. i'm sure you know without me having to say it, proof is in the methodology. there was a poll conducted by the president. he did not have board input and we are not aware of the methodology and do not consider it to be a reliable indication of the membership's position. i will not try to represent what the position is. i don't know. i do have a question that i hope you can resolve for us in the context of your deliberations. having spoken for the first time to the project sponsors outside of this room, i do not understand, it is not clear to me how the promise or the commitment of a reduction of

square footage in these units is to be accomplished. if it is not, if that is not the figure of the units and the plants before you that you are adopting today, i'm not clear how that is accomplished. perhaps you can clarify. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my wife trisha and i live directly across the street from the project on opera terrace. we are not corporate --dash corbett heights neighbors. we are right across the street from the proposed project. we have been actively involved with the developers and with the staff of the city for well over two years since we first heard about the project. we had a number of concerns at the outset and they have mostly resolved into being particularly focused on the privacy impacts and the architectural impact to us being so close by. i think it is fair to say that

our negotiations with the developer -- i think a mild word would be intense. we had a lot of disagreement with them. but it resulted in a agreements. that agreement is in a letter that my wife and i submitted to the planning commission some time ago. but it is, we do now support the project because of this agreement. it provides, as often you have heard mr clinton and others mention that there is -- their world be no roof access on the roofs along upper terrace. therefore --dash therefore there are new features in the original proposal such as railings, pop-ups to allow access. high skylights. all of which have been eliminated. there are still skylights, but there can be no more than a foot above the roof and is also mentioned by the developers and their council, at the height of the roof along upper terrace is

now to be no greater than the existing height of the roof on the building on the right at 301 -303 upper terrace. those are the main features, which we feel have been very material concessions by the developers. we are very pleased with that. and on top of that, the developers have been gracious enough to agree that if a conditional use authorization is issued, it will be binding on anyone else who takes over this project. it will be, it will be in a court. they will join the project if they are another developer begins -- starts to brief -- breach at which i'm not suggesting is contemplated. if there are any tweaks or any revisions, as we have heard about today, there will be at least in the project over all a in square footage. those features will not cause any violation of this agreement and to the architects for the

developer have certified to us in writing that the agreement that we reach, at the october 1 st plans, which are of 2018 before the commission today, are in conformity with that agreement. in light of all that, we very much unequivocally support the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. if there are any. >> good afternoon. i am the representative of an extremely large organization known as the morris street neighborhood watch. there are 37 houses on mars street. for the moment i speak for all of those houses on the 60 people who live there and we have only one question. can you agree to break the law. there is a rule that says you cannot build a housing unit larger than 3,000 square feet in our neighborhood. that is the role.

could all of these neighbors agreed to break that rule quietly have a suggestion. as you can see from a brilliantly written letter with only three misspellings, bless my mother, here is our suggestion. doubled the number of units. add twice as many people to that area. why would you do that call because it is exactly in line with what the city is looking for here. they are looking for increased residences along public transit corridors. isn't that correct, you bet it is. this is a huge public transit corridor. they are two bus lines. there is a busy street going in both directions, there is lots of parking in the neighborhood once a month when the street is being cleaned. [laughter] >> sorry about that. that is what he fluctuates what this city needs. do we need four bedroom 3 million-dollar houses in our

neighborhood while we don't. because we don't have them now. it is a sample. it has about 1200 square feet average on every house. there is not a single house but for one that is larger than that why do we need 3,703,6504100 square feet units. we could double the number of families that live in our neighborhood using the same amount of space. the architects have been great. they are friendly, they are amenable yet they are asking for you to break the rule. no one has mentioned that today. the question you will ask me, why haven't you been here before to complain about this? one of the lawyers who sits in our informal group said it is hard about the story about the young man who brutally murdered both of his parents. when he came to be sentenced by the judge, he pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan.

yes, it is the case that this was the rule all along. i am asking you to enforce its. that is all. thank you very much. >> thank you. additional public comment? >> i am laura clark. so there is two questions. there is the individual case by case question, are we going to permit housing as it has been proposed, and then there's the larger question. are we going to up so in this, in general by right to, more units. it seems like there's a lot of demand and that for the neighborhood. i didn't expect that. it is lovely to hear a bunch of people say we should see twice or three times the units. i think that you guys could, right now say, awesome, lets up so in this neighborhood. we've heard a lot of public

comment. list directs the planning department to draft something immediately to upsell in this neighborhood to allow for twice as many units in general. you could do that it would be awesome. the question is, for this project, are you going to, on a case by case basis, make things unpredictable clout we have seen this go from five units to ten minute -- to units. that is good. it took four years. that is not fun. we don't have to do that. we can make the rules and follow the rules. we could upsell in the neighborhood to allow for 20 units on a lot. that would be awesome. there's plenty of transit. this good schools. has all the kinds of amenities that one could want to. you have heard the public say that that is what they want. i might suspect that later they will say, actually, we changed our mind. that is for me to be cynical about. that is not -- let's live in hope. lets live in hope that these cries for additional housing

units are genuine and that when we upsell in this neighborhood, we will see all these people back here again saying how lovely it will be that we will have more families joining our community. i will not complain about the potential for traffic. i will not complain about the burden on our water or whatever will come next. let's live in hope that these same individuals will say yes. i want to see more apartments in my neighborhood his. i want to see a ten unit project on a single-family home only lots. i live and breathe, i would love to see it. i think that we should not delay this project any further. we should make the permitting process cost, fair and sane. everybody is a gossip. you heard everyone in the community say they are exhausted it will make sense to go into single revenue source so they get invited out to a grants program so we are not seeing this kind of individual piecemeal payout to. that would be an awesome and

systemic change that you could make. but making these decisions and varying the role so much on a case by case basis means we lose two and three unit projects all the time. we need the system to be fast, fair and sane. four years is too long. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? >> i'm sorry. >> all rights. seeing none, we will close public comment and open up to commissioners. >> thank you to everyone who showed up today. i am glad to hear so much support from -- and not just from the neighbors, but from the close and nearly adjacent neighbors. some projects we see come down to appearance when we have such a sloped lot, because you are at the bottom looking up, you will look a lot bigger than it is. if you are at the top looking down, you look smaller than it is. over the course of the years and

with all the input involved we have gotten to a good place and i am supportive of the proposed project today. >> thank you. i'm impressed with the project sponsor's work in terms of involving the community. that goes above and beyond. it is more than we will usually see. i want to commend you on that. i just want to address a couple of the specific comments and requests that were made by the public. if somebody from the project sponsor team could address something, thank you. the first thing i wanted to ask about was about the specific comments towards assuring -- shoring up the hillside. >> they were two commentaries that specifically said there were agreements made and that is

what you are presenting today. the agreement you made was with the neighbors? >> yes. i'm yes. what was the question specifically caught there is an agreement with a group of neighbors that focuses primarily on the geological issues. so the stabilization of the hillside both during and after construction. there were a number of measures that we all agreed to do with consultation with the experts on both sides to implement that and to address all the concerns. >> just because the commenter specifically said, it is as a promise. >> it is. >> so the second one was about the community benefits agreements. what is up with that? >> there are several. i assume you're asking me about the corbett heights neighborhood the project team has engaged in

a long series of discussions with all of the neighborhood groups. they came to a point where we all thought, they thought there was a general consensus with regard to this reduction of the overall square footage by about 10%, and there was an offer made of this community benefits package. as far as we knew, up until late yesterday, that was it. there seems to be some internal dispute in that group and it is not something we have been intimately involved in. the developer is committed to the reduction that they said they would give and is committed to providing those funds but it is completely flexible to how those funds are handled and how people want to disperse them. >> just to be clear, we are not enforcing that. lastly, i wanted to ask you

about the commenters who specifically said there was an agreement about reduction in the square footage again. it was posed as what you are proving as the same thing. >> the agreement to reduce the overall square footage of the project by at about 10% will not affect any of the actual design that you see before you. it is basically taking some smaller spaces and making them no longer habitable or no longer usable spaces that would no longer qualify under the definition of square footage. so it does not actually affect the design of the project in any way. >> i must say. i love the design. i think it's really a good-looking and handsome project. i love the diversity of the design and how -- i really do -- i am particularly fond of it. thank you so much. >> i appreciate that. i am really proud to be working

with the team as well. thank you. >> thank you. just a question for staff on the agreements. there were a couple of agreements referenced that i want to follow up on. the agreements, i think there was an attorney at the beginning who talked on behalf of some adjacent neighbors about the hillside. and then there was an agreement with the neighbor across the street about some element of the building like roof decks and things like that. and then there was a corbett heights who talked about a 10% reduction which is incorporated and they are separate from our conditions or parts of them? >> all of those that you restaurants are not the planning code jurisdiction. >> the second one is. the one about roof decks and things like that. if there was an agreement -- >> they are being based on what the applicant has submitted based on the planning department is as part of their proposal.

the neighborhood negotiations that may have happened we have proceeded that. i haven't had a direct involvement with or intimate understanding of how that came about. we are just reviewing what is before us in any given submittal >> and i most concerned about why the neighbor across the street -- i forgot his name. maybe you can help. >> he specifically talked about building the surgeon appearances of the building and this is reflective of the plans that were proven. >> all rights. thank you. i agree with the commissioner more. that is at 17th and clayton.

the gentleman said we are doing something illegal. what you propose was illegal in doing four units on each side. i wish we could but we wish we could. we are allowed to do two units on each lot. i'm glad the developer is doing that. they look great and i am a former resident in this neighborhood and fully supportive of this project. >> people are trying to get some comment from me about the architecture. i want to do for that comment for a moment and asking a couple of policy questions. we have engineering to ensure that the adjoining neighbors have guarantees in a site where excavation will resemble the mining site. i think it is the minimum of good practice. it is typically done in san francisco. it does not fall under the san francisco ordinance.

the extent of excavation is definitely more than unique and something to be very cautious about. that said, i have a question and that is up to mr washington and to mr townsend about the su d. requirement for 1700 square feet maximum as mentioned by mr dean. i'm curious about that. as discussed with the architect back obviously the unit and gentrification of the city is a policy issue that we struggle with and looking at projects of this kind. it is our obligation to see that we hope generally with the maximum number of units. it is complicated. it is very expensive to develop. i would like to have an answer to the issue raised by mr dean.

that is for mr -- mr washington. >> thank you for asking that question. the square footage is referencing the large resident su d. which establishes a square foot threshold that is subject to a conditional use authorization request so they can further consider the request which exceeds that threshold. based on the three specific criteria that are outlined. his or a second part to your question class. >> i want to have you reaffirm -- you quoted something without being specific. it was commissioned -- >> su d.

-- properly weigh the pros and cons from units from 1700s to 3,000 and beyond. what is before us maybe shows one solution and nothing else.

the projects of density have been discussed with the neighbors and they've apparently reached understandings, but it does not obligate us to commissioners to say, take it or leave it. i'm not judging the project. i'm asking questions of process. and i'm asking questions of our responsibility as commissioners to really look at the pros and cons of what specific guidelines us us to do. that's an open question. i don't have any position, but i do not see any alternatives in front of me as a commissioner to participate in that discussion. at this moment, it's negotiated with the neighborhood only. however, the neighborhood only is not exactly what the commission needs to do. we need to take the neighborhood concerns about adjaceadjacentcy

the bigger policy question is what the commission needs to consider. >> president hillis: to clarify -- what has evolved is a project that maximizes the density. all five lots have two units. the one with a single-family home demoed. the 3,000 square foot is not per unit. it's per building. one goal of that was to try to minimize large, 4,000-square-foot, single-family homes, and try to maximize two homes. to me, this does what we've asked them to do. there's not a monster home. there are two decent-sized units on each lot. i wish we could add a.d.u.s, but we can't because we didn't pass that legislation. that's where we are. it's great. we don't see a lot of housing in

this neighborhood being developed. i'm glad that the neighbors have supported it. i think lets move it along. >> commissioner moore: i would like to ask the architect to briefly comment on what you just said and explain what he explored and the c.u. ranges. do you mind? >> president hillis: sure. >> commissioner moore: would i like to have the architect that designed the building speak to that. >> so the question is on the range of unit sizes and have there been exploration to create smaller units? do you mind clarifying? >> president hillis: maybe go through the evolution of some of the -- give us a brief summary of the unit sizes. >> well, the units have evolved in that they've gotten smaller

from their original conception. originally the units, of course, we had five, they were larger units. then we doubled the dwelling unit density. yes, ryan has a table that he can share that shows the evolution through each iteration of the changes in unit sizes. and it should be noted that a lot of the square footage -- because of the steep hillside, the square footage is kind of happening below the building, if you will. commissioner moore is not mistaken. there is a good bit of excavation on the site to accomplish this, but it should be noted again that if you look at the buildings on upper terrace, for example, they have a lot of unused space underneath the building that's dead space, vacant.

and these projects -- most of the square footage is in the vacant space underneath of the reduction that's in process per the latest agreement is also happening where we're reducing the amount of excavation. that's why the statement that the buildings remain the same, despite the fact that we're reducing the size further, is because we're reducing the excavation, pulling some of that square footage out of the buildings. >> it went from 6,000 square feet in the first iteration down to 3,000 square feet in the current iteration. >> commissioner koppel: wanted to make a motion to approve as proposed. >> second. >> president hillis: any additional comments? >> clerk: a motion made and

seconded. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us on item 17 for 2018-006127cua. 201 19th avenue, conditional use authorization. >> president hillis: are we waiting? are you ready? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. commissioners, the case before you is a request for conditional use authorize pursuant to planning code section 186.202, 303 and 710 to allow the change of use -- >> president hillis: if we have people leaving, if they could do it quietly. >> to change from a grocery store to a restaurant at 40-x height and bulk district. we received one email of opposition. since the staff report was published, staff has received 20 additional emails of opposition, citing concerns about traffic, odor and that the corner store may be more in character with the existing neighborhood. staff has received a petition

with 17 signatures of opposition from members of the adjacent church. staff has received one letter of support for the project. on balance, the department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and necessary and desirable for the community and recommends approval with conditions. thank you. i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon. my name is steven mcmillan. i'm the architect working on the project with my client. this is a beautiful building that is on the corner of 19th and california. currently it's in a state of disrepair to some extent with a lot of liquor signs and cigarette signs and signage that's in disrepair, canopies,

things of that nature. and my client is a restaurant operator in the city. he's a native of san francisco. he's -- he owns a number of other establishments. and his goal is really to augment the neighborhood and provide a service to the neighbors. and is hoping that you will approve the application today. we did receive a number of letters in objection. i just received those today, in fact. and a lot of them speak to that the market has been there for a long period of time. i suspect that when the market was initially established that it was a food service establishment at the time. the signage on the front of the building indicates that it's a

de del deli, where there is no food prepared at the time. there is no fresh food available for the neighbors. and the character of the business, we believe, would -- the neighborhood would be improved if the restaurant was permitted to open. that's really all i can offer. and i welcome any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. we may have some. we'll open it up first for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm damian cordic. i'm a resident of the neighborhood and i work and i live, obviously, in san francisco. this is a convenience store. and there are no convenience stores in the area.

the owner has been very gracious to all the locals on bringing in certain products that we use. i use a certain almond milk. he brings it in for me. it's for my diet. it's been nothing -- he's been nothing but a blessing for this neighborhood. the building obviously isn't owned by him. so the renovations that are needed to make the building look better, i think we need to speak to the owner about. the bottom line is, this individual that owns the convenience store, which is not a grocery store, he caters to the locals. he caters to us. he's been nothing but a friend to all of us and he helps us. when i come home from work, there's a certain thing i need, he has it there. i want to let you know, it would be nothing more than a blessing to keep the convenience store the way it is. and then we can talk to the

owner about doing the restorations needed to make it look nicer, but he's been nothing but a blessing. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm also a local. and live near where the store is located. and i don't think the neighborhood needs another overpriced restaurant. we have plenty of those in san francisco. and -- my parents are immigrants, came and struggled. and i think we should keep the vitality of san francisco alive with people coming and also earning an honest living and helping their kids. he's a great person and we should keep him in the neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please? >> president hillis, commissioners, thank you for letting me speak. i'm kind of out of my element

here. i filled out my blue card, but i still have it. my name is charlie thompson. i live at 211 19th avenue, two doors down from the site. i've lived there for 20 years the corner market was there when i moved in. corner markets are part of san francisco. this neighborhood, if you look directly across the street on california, all multi-tenant buildings. 19th avenue south of california where i live, first two buildings, single-family. everything else, multifamily. the number of people that go to this market, walking by my front door, is large. this store is a major benefit to our local community. restaurants walk down between park presidio and 25th. you will see more than enough of them. they're everywhere. and they're not open all the

time. i heard other speakers talk about empty commercial space in san francisco. this is not empty commercial space. it's a vibrant market that serves the neighborhood. there are many empty spaces that a restauranteur can find to open a restaurant. there is one restaurant, which i just found out recently, opened on, what, the 20th? it's created a major traffic problem in the neighborhood. the neighborhoods are upset about it. it's not just me the homeowner that will be upset about it, it's the people that we're trying to house in san francisco. the people that live in the apartment building. they need to walk to pick up milk, flour. sure, they will buy beer and cigarettes. they will buy them somewhere else if they don't buy them here. what's wrong with that? what's wrong with san francisco

preserving its neighborhoods, its identity and making it work for the people of san francisco. i don't need another high-priced restaurant. i can walk to them, ride in my uber, my lyft. i cannot walk to the neighborhood store if it's gone. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. good afternoon. i'm joseph bimbo, local of the convenience store. i've shopped there the last 10 years. they have everything that you need at a market without going all the way to the market. it's an awesome store. if it becomes a restaurant, it's only going to become a big hassle with rodents, raccoons, parking congestion. we have enough of that. the neighborhood is terrible for parking already. we don't need to look for hours and hours for a parking spot.

most of all the neighborhoods don't have a parking spot or a garage or a driveway. honestly, the owner of the business is a really good owner. a restaurant that will fail in the matter of 6 months to a year and become a big nuisance is unnecessary. we don't need another failed restaurant. we've had multiple failed restaurants a block away. children come from the playground and purchase water, soda, candies, cakes. the restaurant is unnecessary. it will be a big hassle for everyone and it will be a nuisance and it will probably keep changing ownership over and over and over like multiple restaurants have done. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm alex senski. i live adjacent to the project. so the way i see it, i don't see how this restaurant would be doing any service to the community that the other dozen restaurants in that 5-block radius aren't doing. i feel as though a lot of people in this community are elderly and don't drive cars. they can't get to a smart and final or a safeway or something like that. they use this grocery store, the supermarket, as a means of getting groceries. i heard something from the support of the restaurant saying there is no fresh produce, no things like that being offered at this grocery store, which is absolutely untrue. there is fresh produce, fresh meats, fresh cheeses, which i personally use myself when cooking.

parking has been a problem in that area for a while now. i feel as though if another restaurant opens, there will be even more problems with parking. someone mentioned the fact that rodents -- there may be a rodent infestation from opening a restaurant in that location the smell may be a nuisance to the community. i see a lot of different -- a lot of different, small things that the restaurant could bring up. there is a playground right next to it. the rise in traffic that the restaurant may bring could pose an unsafe situation for kids who are running back and forth to and from the playground. and, yes, it's basically -- i think that the supermarket has been there for a long time, i think since the '50s. there is no reason to change it, when there are a lot of other locations in the neighborhood where a restaurant would

definitely fit in a little bit better, as far as the surroundings. and, yeah, i think it would be doing a huge disservice taking away the market and putting a restaurant there when there's tons of restaurants in the area. there is one right around the corner from this proposed location that's been changing hands for the last five years. i think it's changed hands three or four times. we need a business that stays and provides a service to the community rather than something that may flip around and become something else next year. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. i'm here to voice opposition to the project. i live 1 1/2 blocks away. we don't need another restaurant. i noticed on the permit that it says there are no other restaurants within 300 feet. go 500 feet away to 19th and clement, you will find a restaurant that's changed over

three times in five years. go another 200 feet down, another handful of restaurants. it's not necessary. it's not wanted. what we do need is a grocery store. and as was mentioned, it's not a full grocery store, but we also don't have one. the closest grocery store, i believe, is 1 1/2 miles away. it's a safeway. albertsons on 33rd and clement was closed. we need a grocery store. we need a place where people can go and buy the things they need at home. for the people that can afford to eat out at restaurants every night, wonderful, but a lot of people can't afford that and need the option. it's worth mentioning that the neighborhood doesn't need two indoor pools nearby either. while we're putting up other projects not helpful to the community, at least this is one we can take action on and this has a big impact. it warms my heart to hear so many of my fellow community members in agreement.

thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm saphi. i live three doors up from the market. i'm not a public speaker or anything. i don't know a lot of the internal politics regarding this issue or terminology, but i'm here on a personal level. i'm here to support my friend from the market as well as the young, local people that he employs at his establishment. with that said, i do not support this project. new california market is not a whole foods, so, of course, there will be signage for cigarettes and beer. i have specific dietary needs. i'm vegan and i can find food there. with my creamer, frozen meals, i can get vegan peanut buttercups,

so he does carry a lot of stuff. and we have multiple farmers markets on different days of the week in that neighborhood. so, anyways, i see so many people in the city get kicked out of their homes and businesses and i don't want to see this happen to my friend. he's well-liked, well respected, hardworking member of our community trying to survive and provide for his family. we all know him in the neighborhood and he knows all of us by a first-name basis. over the last 13 years, we've sold personal relationships with him and grown to know him and like having a corner store on our block. today while i was waiting for the bus, there were multiple people lined up outside his market, so he's clearly bringing in business and is well-liked. he is a staple of our

neighborhood. we want him there. we don't need another new restaurant. i don't see the point of kicking him out for a restaurant that could fail. we have an abundance of restaurants in the richmond. there is nothing wrong with his business. he's not doing anything wrong. and we the people within the neighborhood that he's serving don't want to see him go. his market is heavily frequented. he's bringing in revenue. i don't see why you need to change or fix something that is nothing wrong with it. it's super hard out here in the city to survive. it's hard for the little guys. what i'm asking is for you to take people like us into consideration. something that may seem miniscule to you may be devastating to others. it's not just a corner store, but it's the long-term business, his well-being and well-being of his children. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm bianca lee.

i live in the neighborhood of the convenience store. and we see the importance of the home for seniors, for childcare, and i hope you will see the importance of this convenience store in our neighborhood, in our community. i have been talking to my neighbors and we have a senior who is over 80 years old, 84, actually. she would have come over here to speak but because of her arthritic condition, she cannot come over. and imagine if she needs to pick up some food or to get some milk, she has to get into the car to drive to safeway to get what she needs to cook. imagine is that hardship for her. and i talked to moms that have little kids and if they need something to cook and they run out of something and they have

to take their 3-year-old, 6-year-old to a car and drive far away to get what they need to cook for the evening, that will be hard for her, too. and then some of the neighbors mentioned single, couples, families, we would have a time when we're tired, we can walk down and get what we need for the evening, for cooking. the other thing is that park and rec, the players after a hard game, they can get their drinks and snacks. and hang out. that's what they can get in the convenience store for the convenience of the people that live in the neighborhood. less driving is better for the environment. if we drive less to pick up what we need, and also when it's

crowded, the kids down the block in the playground or in the park and rec, it will create more dangers for them to cross the street there with more cars and all that. so, i hope you hear our voices and i hope i could make a difference to keep what we need in the neighborhood that's a snapshot, what i said. and it may be a little something. it may be just little things, but it's something that day-to-day affecting us and i hope you will consider it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is natalia cressich, lifelong resident of the

neighborhood and am a board member of the planning association for the richmond district. so i'm speaking today in opposition of the conditional use authorization for 201 19th avenue. as a third generation richmond district resident, my family and i have lived one block away and attend atte attended church services near there for years. it has met the neighborhood's needs for over 75 years. all of the historic owners have maintained the business's beautiful, original signage. the business is part of the neighborhood. of most immediate concern is the restaurant's impact of the church, which is next door to 201 19th avenue. we anticipate that the

restaurant will be extremely disruptive to the functioning of the church in terms of noise and smell and disruption of pests. our church has existed side by side with the market for over 60 years. our parishioners have a good relationship with the shop's opener. our neighborhood is served by a corner market where residents can go to get household and grocery items, especially at later hours than any other market in our immediate area. a new restaurant will not serve our neighborhood. california street is a residential -- largely residential area. so there's no need to bring in a new restaurant to this area, especially with the extreme

proliferation of available, vacant storefronts. that's an issue that we deal with in the rich mount -- richmond neighborhood. we hope that this will be denied. we're also hopeful that new california market's owner will be able to negotiate a long-term lease and continue operating this historic corner market. it's a hardworking small business owner that deserves more than month-to-month leases and we're looking forward to seeing what long-term lease stability can bring to his business. i'm presenting the signatures of all the parishioners. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. [please stand bcommunity.

recently we established a safe group on our block the 100th block of 20th avenue. all of our neighbors know each other and watch out for each another and an influx of commercial traffic and people and cars will not help our goal of keeping our neighborhood safe. thank you very much. >> commissioner: thank you. commissioner. >> i want to thank everyone for coming out and sharing your personal stories and experience

pipp pippen experience. i enjoyed the shout-out to the richmond raccoons. i live in the neighborhood so i know them well and this particular business. and i think in the richmond, we have i think one of the best neighborhoods in san francisco and i love it because of the wonderful business owners that make the richmond feel like a family neighborhood. that being said, initially when i looked at this and was weighing it, i think in richmond in general we have to support our local businesses both the ones existing and the ones that want to come in to our community and we have an issue of our corridors needing more traffic

and mir -- more uses an that being said there's a vibrant business there that has community support and serving the community. if this were a vacant space or serving the community, i think i would support the creation of another space for a small business to come in and potentially thrive. but i have to say i've been moved by public comment and the voice of the community and so i'm really taking into account and weighing it as a make my decision but i'd love to open it up and hear what other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner: commissioner. >> thinking back to the comments earlier during the meeting