>> good evening, the commissioners. my name is steve adams. i am a member, i'm supposed to disclose this, of the san francisco small-business commission, however, i am speaking on my own, and my own opinion. i totally support the 2166 market street project. you had a vacant space here for two years, and these gentlemen came in and activated that space , and what i have seen in the year that they have done that, they bring people into the neighborhood, they have a lot of members in the neighborhood, but a lot of members out of the neighborhood. they come into the neighborhood and paul and nate promote the castro, and they bring businesses from the castro to come in and talk to members. these members, after they come there and do their socializing, they go to the book club, then they're going to dinner in the neighborhood and shopping in the neighborhood, and using the services in the neighborhood. we have a lot of vacancies in

this city and we are starting to get a lot of vacancies in the upper market corridor. and this is another different use to activate the spaces, apt to get people out of their house at night, we all know what millennial his like to stay home and order everything, to me it gets these guys out of their house, into the neighborhoods, spending money in the neighborhoods, so they've been great to neighbors. i know i am a member of the castro merchants. we overwhelmingly support them and their see you appeal, it also the castro c.b.d., and others. they have been a great neighbor. they're great people, they promote the neighborhood, and this is something we can all think about and we will talk about that later, and activating spaces at these vacant retail spaces. i thank you for your time and i hope you will consider this.

thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. without public comments, that is closed. commissioner richards? >> being close to where i live, i had the pleasure to meet nate and paul yesterday. that's when i had a root canal. i was on nitrous oxide. anyway, i walked in because i walked by the place several times, and i saw a barber in the front. i know one of the barbers who cuts hair and i said what the heck is inside there? my barber told me what was in there was a private club. i sought written up in the chronicle -- i saw it written up in the chronicle. i went in and they did a really good job on the space. there was a card of activities that showed each day, other then the two days they are closed, activities that they had. they have a winetasting, on my eyes -- my ears lingered --

wiggled a little bit. i absolutely support the business and support the change of use. we did go outside however, and we worked together and said, you know, these outdoor areas tend to be problematic, especially when you have -- i don't know if you can see this, these are all bedroom windows from the twin peaks residential hotel next door, and they partner with larkin street community services for homeless youth and things, and i said, you know, if you haven't used the patio yet, let's put some conditions on this so that these people can enjoy their rooms when they want to sleep or whatever that they do if they work as nurses or whatever at night and they have to sleep during the day, but also have you enjoy using the patio, because it is clearly an amenity. they did a great job out there. one of the things we talked about was putting a 9:00 p.m. limit instead of a 10:00 p.m. a

limit on the weeknights, which is sunday, wednesday, thursday, and they agreed. at a friday and saturday, 10:00 p.m. outside. the other thing was because it is so close, i said, amplified music is probably not a good idea. we have had amplified music and t.v. a few weeks ago and it drove people crazy. so i said, no amplified music, please remove the speakers, but then i said, we've had this thing, there are certainly fun party days in the neighborhood. pick four or five days where you could have amplified music and go until midnight and have a good party out there, like gay pride, new years, mardi gras, whatever. we agreed that we had talked about this, and you have a desire to be a good neighbor in these conditions. these conditions are acceptable. >> thank you.

it was a great meeting with you yesterday and showing you the space. we totally hear the concerns about that. when bridget did talk about it being an outdoor entertainment area, our intention is not for it to be entertainment. apart from maybe those days you mentioned where we do a daytime party and have a plan to daytime party for pride. however, the activities primary to that outdoor area would be quiet conversation, a place to read, a place to work on laptops , and of course, the occasional reception. we do, i wanted to mention, we rent out our space to nonprofit organizations for free, so we would host receptions and things like that. we are totally fine with limitations on the amplified music. it is not something that is material to what we want to do out there. however, given our positive relationship with the building

owner next door who owns the twin peaks hotel, and we have met with him, he is supportive, and the ordinance of 10:00 p.m. for noise every day, being that is already something that exists , we would ask you to consider that 10:00 p.m. daily be the restriction, and we are open tuesday through saturday night. it would be consistent across the board. that is something we would like you to consider, however, it is not a dealbreaker for us. >> and what about -- what are the four or five holidays you'd want to have? >> new year's eve, probably something on pride weekend, possibly on folsom weekend. coinciding, like you said, with nights like halloween. >> same thing we do with the café way back when. >> yeah,. >> okay. , i will wait to hear what my other commissioners think. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore?

[indiscernible] >> you started this without the proper permits. that is what is represented here i don't take that against you, that happens. you need a permits because of entertainment uses are not allowed in the retail corridor. that said, i would expect that what commissioner richard -- richards outlined very sensitive measures to let this use, which is normally not typical here, kind of use in. i would suggest that we do a trial period, particularly over the summer. let's use it until october, or september, and come back and see if that 10:00 p.m. works. i know what it is like when people who only have a single room, and s.r.o. type a living arrangement, they work at different hours, and most of us do. we need to be sensitive. this is a large complex. i do have a hard time that there

was no reporting in this entire piece of what the adjoining neighbors think or do, or what it is all about. you have to bring up the picture , and then realize, oh, it is residential. what conversations did you have with the neighbors. there was not a narration of that. the other thing i would like to ask is why do you know the next-door owner, which is great, but there's also a number in the building by which tenants can call with issues that they personally feel is bothering them, because if they have to talk to the owner, there maybe repercussions. there should be -- it should should be anonymous for them to voice an issue if there is one from their perception. it is not very easy to live above or near a very active use, which is very different -- different from my own lifestyle. i'm saying that with empathy because we know lots of s.r.o.

conditions in san francisco, where there is a real clash between the people who live in a residential hotel, versus those who are basically living it up, and so this is a question of sensitivity. i am in support of it, and if you have people watching, i am in support, but i would like to see a condition of a trial period. >> i think we have had a trial period. okay. i will report back. okay. so i make a motion to approve with the conditions of no amplified music, 10:00 p.m. every day on the outdoor patio, until midnight with amplified music, new year's eve, castro street fair, folsom street fair, the street fair and am i missing one? halloween. >> pride weekend.

those five. they can have amplified music until midnight. >> are you amenable to the idea of a trial period? >> yes, let's to six months. >> just for the portion for the tenant blocks. >> i don't think it is a trial period, commissioners. >> that's fine, i am calling it the wrong word. >> we would like to make sure that the residents of the next-door twin peaks residential hotel maybe get a mailing to say , how is it going, i just want to make sure that people can really figure it out. >> did you also want to include it community contact? >> definitely, definitely. there's always someone who will be there. >> oh, yeah,. we are staffed all the time when we are open. my phone number is already on the window in that big poster so they can have that. >> we also talked about this. we have had these very adversarial situations where for whatever reason, something does happen and it does bother the

people that are trying to sleep. we don't want to push the enforcement onto the neighbors. we want to make sure it just is a nice balance. if you can provide you number, that would be great. >> we are happy to do that. >> that is my motion. >> second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include no amplified music, that the outdoor activity area close at 10:00 p.m. daily, with the exception on new year's eve, castro street fair, folsom street fair, pride week and halloween, amplified music until midnight, provided community liaison, and to have a six-month report back components. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously.

item 16. a conditional use authorization. >> i think before we start this, commissioner richards has asked to recuse himself, so we have to vote on the recusal. >> i live within 500 feet. >> move to recuse commissioner richards. >> second. >> okay. >> thank you. commissioner richards, before you leave, i thank you are aware of this, but there was a new law effective generally first of this year that you all should be a made aware of, that not only do you need to address the reason why you are recusing yourself at the hearing, but within 15 days, you have to submit a form to the ethics commission stating why and so on that form is still being developed.

as soon as it is completed, i will forward it on to you. the strict -- the tricky aspect of the recusal law includes that even if you are absent on a day for an item that you need to recuse yourself, you still need to submit -- submit that form. >> can you clarify for us if it is a thousand feet or 500 feet? >> 500 feet. >> but the training went through this morning said 1,000 feet. i'm just checking. >> it has always been 500, unless they changed it. very good then. on that motion to recuse commissioner richards -- and you actually vote on this. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. commissioner richards, you are hereby recused. you can go ahead. >> good afternoon, again, commissioners. plenty department staff.

the project before you now as a conditional use authorization for a change of use from an automotive repair shop to a retail professional service. this is a real estate brokerage doing businesses the agency. the project site is located within the boundaries of the upper market street neighborhood commercial transit district which requires a conditional use authorization for any project which proposes a change of use to retail professional services at the ground floor. the proposed tenant, the agency, the real estate brokerage and plans to accommodate 75-100 employees at the site. the hours of operation will be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. monday through saturday. the subject property is located and an existing 87,388 square foot single-story commercial building on 16th street. the subject tenant space is currently vacant and was most recently occupied by an automotive repair shop which vacated the space in 2016. that size is larger than other commercials standpoints,

whatever the building has historically been occupied by one tenant, in this project will maintain the historic integrity of the building by occupying the entire building. the department has received 12 letters of support for the project, in which members of the public expressed support and the revitalization of a large, vacant commercial space. two of those letters were received after the packet was published and will be distributed to you. staff recommends approval of this conditional use authorization request as noted in the executive summary. it proposes to fill a vacant storefront and will provide an active use in a historic building. the district is well served by transit, therefore clients and employees should not impede traffic. the project meets all applicable requirements, and the project is consistent with the intent of the upper market street neighborhood commercial transit zoning district and the the market octavia plan.

this concludes presentations. i am available to answer any questions. the project sponsor is here and will have a presentation. >> thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening. i know it has already been a long day. i will be quick. this project proposes an active use in what is a tough space for traditional retail use. it is large, almost 9,000 square feet. it is outside of the main commercial corridor door. it has been vacant for several years. just to clarify, the vacancy, the last owner retired. it was not an issue of displacement. it has been a really hard space to tenant, it is a deep space. this is actually an active use that can make beneficial use of this vacant property. it will draw customers, you will draw employees, the agency has a focus on encouraging employees to go out and get lunch locally, do their dry-cleaning, and really participate in the community.

you will hear from rachel swung, the managing partner. she is incredibly active in the community and she will talk more about the community partnerships the project is supported by all the major neighborhood groups. castro and market, c.b.d., neighborhood valley association, it is amazing that everyone is on board with this project. in one of the reasons is because of the incredibly strong ties that rachel and the agency have with the neighborhood. we are here for any questions, but i will let you hear from rachel. >> hi there. i have the managing partner of the agency, and we have been looking for quite some time for a collaborative space for our company. we like to work together and we have several different spaces. we work spaces throughout the city for our land development and new development and our residential.

we're looking for a big space to call home. we do have a small kiosk in the valley, but we do not have enough space for everybody that works for us, and this seems close enough to the neighborhoods that we are actively involved in that we thought this would be a great space. i know that the daytime foot traffic in the castro suffers out of all the neighborhoods in the city, so we are excited to help to revitalize that area. i'm open for any questions if you would like. >> thank you. we may have questions. >> okay. >> okay. , with that, we will open this up for public comment. if there is any public comment, please come up. i don't have any speaker cards. okay. public comment is now closed. commissioners? commissioner hillis? >> i think this is a good use. i would not want to see it on a

main commercial corridor, but i agree with the project sponsor when they say it will have the name. i moved to approve it. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. item 17. conditional use authorization. >> commissioners, i want to introduce a planner who you have not met yet. this planet is with the southeast quadrant. she is one of the newest planner it's just planners. she comes to us from new york

city where she worked in the manhattan borough office. this is her second time with the city. she worked previously as an intern for the public works department chair where she worked on the better market street project, what you heard the e.i.r. for today. she received a bachelor his degree in planning from south china university of technology and her master degree at u.c. berkeley. welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you as a conditional use authorization for the proposed project between fourth and fifth street to establish an amusement arcade use in the western soma mixed-use district, also called the remote district and to establish a restroom -- restaurant and bar use within the soma and family especially use district. as part of the recently adopted 2018 central soma area plan, the subject property was rezoned to

mixed-use residential zoning district. preplanning code section 175.1, the project needs to be exempt from the central soma zoning controls and instead be subject to the previous controls, since an application was filed before february 15th, 2018. the project sponsor currently occupies the subject tenant to space and doing business as -- -- you no commercial tenant will be displaced. the space is approximately 6,000 square feet and is located on the ground floor and mezzanine level. with an existing two story commercial building. the space is being used as a retail sales and service use including golf equipment sales and repair us us, as well as a virtual golf practice. on the current planting code, the existing virtual golf practice stalls qualifies as an accessory arcade use since there are less than 11 mechanical

amusement devices. the proposed project will change the use from retail sales and service it to amusement arcade, bar, and restaurant to use. the proposal involves tenant improvements, including adding a new kitchen, a bar, at three pinball machines. in addition to the existing age virtual golf practice stalls, to a total of 11 amusement game devices. the business will operate from 6:00 a.m. until midnight on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. until midnight on weekends, which is principally permitted under the planning code. based on a planning use survey completed by the project sponsor and verified by the department staff, the total commercial frontage frontage dedicated to eating and drinking establishments located within 300 feet of the project and the zoning district will increase from 17.8% to 22 -- 23-point 2% after the addition of the

proposed restaurant and bar use. it is in compliance with the current code. to date, the department has not received any public comments regarding this proposed project. the project sponsor held a publicly -- a public application meeting on december 4th, 2018 with no attendees. after analysing all aspects of the project, department staff recommends approval with conditions to comply with applicable requirements of the planning code, general plan, and restaurant soma area plan plan, as well as standard conditions for eating and drinking uses. the project sponsor is here to prepare a presentation of the proposed project, and this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have a project sponsor? >> good evening, commission members. i am the project architect.

a brief description will suffice the talk to owners of this business had a former business within walking distance on howard street. the same idea of golf practice stalls where computer-generated images simulates the experience of driving a golf ball down a long fairway, and they have loyal customers who are eager to have them reopen in the new location. they are supplementing their former business with three pinball machines to meet the requirements, technical requirements of amusement arcade , and a bar serving -- it is technically a restaurant under the planning code, but

they're just serving sandwiches and snacks. the two owners are here and they would like to introduce themselves. >> hello, my name is michael. i am one of the cofounders of eco- club indoor glop -- indoor golf. one of the things we want to emphasize his minimal disturbance to the neighborhood. the restaurant and bar will be located about 40 touch a 50 feet within the building frontage. we also anticipate the revenue from the bar and restaurant to be 20 or 25% of our total sales. what we want to emphasize we are a golf facility first and a restaurant and bar second. thank you. >> peter erickson, also co-owner of the business. a big portion of what we are doing is creating a place for people to come to practice golf, play, have a good time after work, during lunch, as we all know, it is hard to get around the city sometimes, and afterward you can't go out to

presidio or other courses to go play. we are here for the community. we like working with the people within the neighborhood. we talked with a bunch of everyone around there. we have support from neighborhood businesses, and all of the residents that are in the area as well. everything we want to do is to be part of the community and grow the community and give opportunities for people to have more activities to do in the area. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. is there any public comment? i have no speaker cards. okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner richards? >> moved to approve. >> second. >> nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter. [roll call]

>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. 5-0. that will place us on item 19. item 18 has been continued. conditional use authorization. >> sorry. good evening, commissioners. department staff. and your liaison to the office of cannabis. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish an industrial agricultural use to allow the cultivation of cannabis at connecticut street. the site is a pre-existing, currently operating facility with temporary authorization to operate while legitimizing. the facility is a 9,320 square foot two story warehouse building located in the p.d.r. court zoning district.

the surrounding context is primarily industrial in nature. above the site and up the hill to the north is the potrero terrace and annex public housing project. the project is not within the bayview area, however, extensive outreach is required as part of the licensing process with the office of cannabis of the conditional use authorization process. the planning department staff has only received one comment on the project, voicing concerned not with the request for the cultivation use, but with the requested wholesale sales licenses at the site. wholesale sales including sales of cannabis to business customers is a principally permitted land use, it is not typically subject to any public notice. there is a potential for crime during transactions on site which may bring in cash. the planning commission to review is limited to the location of characteristics of

cannabis uses with operational and security measures, regulated by the office of cannabis which retains the regulating authority even if the operator changes in the future to a different -- different operator. the planning department is compiling data on the amount of square footage that has been converted or is proposed to be converted to cannabis cultivation. however, since many cultivation sites were authorized prior to any requirement for conditional use authorization, we are relying on licensing data from the office of cannabis, which is not yet able to provide such data. however, the project under review is a small operation that is pre-existing and seeking legitimization. as a project complies with the planning code and furthers the goal of the general plan, the department finds it necessary and desirable and recommends approval of the project with conditions. however, staff recommends that condition number 9 be struck from the conditions. the condition relates to the removal of a curb cut, however, the vehicle access door remains viable in this case, so the

removal is not necessary. that concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor? no. >> the project sponsor should be harvey, i believe might have stepped out not knowing that the other item was continued. >> no. >> i apologize, i don't know where the sponsor is. >> i guess we will -- oh, okay. are you going to make a presentation? >> yes. >> go ahead. let's do it. >> i get tired, too. so i missed the staff presentation, but this matter is

just essentially the reclassification of cannabis growing facilities that were in operation for some time. there are two linked buildings, and -- >> go ahead. speak into the microphone. >> there are two -- two side-by-side buildings, and this is for the one that had not undergone the proper approval procedure, and we are just trying to get it straightened out. >> okay. >> i don't have anything to add beyond that. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. okay, with that, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> moved to approve.

>> second. >> i actually would like to make a couple comments about this. so i understand that this is a compliance issue with existing use, and it is a small, you know , business relatively speaking. i am concerned that we don't have any information from the office of cannabis about what is in the pipeline, how many square feet, we can expect over the next, you know, a few months. the issue for me is that this is in a p.d.r. protected zone. i think that there's been folks who have been working on the issue of protecting p.d.r. manufacturing jobs for decades in san francisco as our workforce has shifted to, and i think that the rents that

cannabis can pay are significantly higher than manufacturing uses. i am worried that if we are not thoughtful and strategic about, you know, the conversion of the p.d.r. and warehouse space to cannabis agriculture, that we are going to see the defamation of areas in the city that are zoned for, you know, eight manufacturing and p.d.r. so i think i just want to have a word of caution. i am ready to support this project, but i think that -- because it is about conforming, in the future, when these things come in front of us, i would really like more information, and a little bit more planning in terms of how we are looking at them. that is all. commissioner richards, did you want to say anything? >> i completely agree. i think maybe an informational from the office of cannabis on

what you have just said would be great. i understand that also putting it through the lens of p.d.r. vacancy rates and rents, i think would be a great semi informational for us for us to be able -- >> i feel like in the many discussions that we've had, we have talked about retail, but we haven't really talked about p.d.r., and in the retail, we have talked about, you know, kids, how many feet from schools and stuff, we haven't talked about the effect of retail on rent, especially on, you know, protected corridors like third street. so i am really interested in that, and also about p.d.r. commissioner moore? >> i share your concerns, and the same questions. i would have actually preferred to see this project continued just as the other one in order to have a clear understanding of what the office of cannabis is

thinking, and what we are doing relative to protecting p.d.r., yet giving all applicants a fair shot, rather than choosing and picking one over the other. there will be limits to how much we can do of this, and i would have preferred some guidance. it is about adjacency, it is about size, it is about frequency, it is generally, what are the adjoining p.d.r. uses, are they comfortable with this arrangement? we don't hear this, and i am not really prepared to vote on this project, but wait for some broader discussion which gets a little bit more into detail. >> did you want to say something >> yes, this is definitely an issue that we are acutely aware of. we have definitely received quite a number of applications currently for these types of conversions, basically mainly in p.d.r. two, and i might ask mike to comment as well, but mainly in p.d.r. two. we currently have about four to

six rare -- warehouse conversions, and all of them require conditional use authorizations. right now we are still working with the office of of cannabis to gather up the data. they recently have had a leadership shift at their office , so they're getting up to speed with some of those requirements as well. >> i'm sorry, is this mostly district ten? >> correct. >> all of the p.d.r. areas are mainly in district ten. the p.d.r. two areas, which is our heavy p.d.r. districts. >> if i could add to that and clarify, we also have a number of cultivation sights in district six and soma, and the majority of this cases don't require any conditional use authorization, it is just a principally permitted land use. there is a blend of cases that the commission will be seeing, in cases that will go out and to be be approved over-the-counter capital go for 311 notice, primarily in soma. in terms of the total square footage, and the impact that

this is happening -- having on p.d.r., we do understand that concern and we are working with the office of cannabis. part of the difficulty and why that information wasn't available today is previously, this type of use was just called a green and would be approved over-the-counter. for example, the adjacent space within the same parcel was approved over-the-counter before this conditional use authorization was required to. the office of cannabis is the working through their licensing and is part of part two of their licensing and will be asking for specific square footage is of different uses so we can get a better sense of that, but we do have a number of other sites that are scheduled through april and may, and we will be coming forward to. some of them are a mix of uses. we only have 250 square feet of cultivation, and the rest of his other use its, and some of them are more like this where it is strictly cultivation and other

uses. >> thank you. >> these are the first times we have heard these types of cases. i think that's why a supervisor tried to continue one of our other items, but not this one. this was more of a grandfathering. this was already in place, where as the case that was continued was a new -- >> both of them are currently existing operating with temporary operators that -- operating. this site is within the purview of the bayview c.a.c., whereas this site is not. >> gotcha. >> commissioner richards. >> one more thing, when we do have these come before us, if we can understand what was there before, did they lose their leaves, to the rents get jacked up 100%, just like we are seeing with formula retail and all

kinds of other uses. this is all new in this area. >> okay. i think we are ready. >> it has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner moore voting against. that will place us in item 20. a conditional use authorization. >> i apologize. we are here for case number 18 and across the street, streaming it alive, and it went past us. >> did not go past you. the supervisor requested a continuance, so they're continued for a month to allow

community engagement. >> okay. the supervisor? the supervisor submitted a request. >> you can talk to the staff person, he is right behind you. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. planning department staff. the plan jonas is passing out to you is a revised first floor for the project in front of you which is requesting conditional use authorization to remove an unauthorized dwelling units pursuant to the planning code. the subject property is located at 132,611th avenue in an r.h. two zoning district and a 40 x.

height and bulk district. it is currently authorized for use as a two family dwelling with a residential flat located on each of the second and third floors. on may 18th, 2017, a city attorney sight inspection was conducted at the property in regards to a potential group housing use. the site inspection did not find a group housing use, but confirms the existence of a ground floor, unauthorized dwelling units. the residents were a member of -- members of the owner his family who live in the second floor flat. the unit maintains a separate independent access to the street and has no direct connection to the units above. the inspection found a shower was illegally added to a half bathroom, and this combined with the addition of a hot plate resulted in the space be determined to be an unauthorized dwelling unit. and appraiser determine the cost of the glass the unit would be approximately $170,000 while adding approximately $100,000 to the value of the property. the construction cost is due to the location of the unauthorized unit behind the garage, the lack of a full kitchen, and other

features regularly found or required in the dwelling units. as well as the numerous building codes to upgrade that would be required to legalize the units. the cost of legalization exceeds the average cost citywide, which the department is approximately $65,000. the department has received two comments in opposition or in support of the project from nearby neighbors, citing the increased traffic in the area on the impact additional dwelling units would have on that. due to the cost of legalization exceeding both the citywide average and the gain in property value, we recommend approval of their request to remove the unauthorized unit and converted back to compliant space. additionally, because attendants are members of the owner's family, no displacements will occur. the department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and necessary desirable for the community and recommends approval with conditions. thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have a project sponsor?

>> can i get the overhead, please? good evening, members of the commission. my name is felix, and i will speak on behalf of the owner. right here i printed out some of the pictures that were -- of the current state of the property at the ground floor. it is being used as a storage. is probably really hard to sleep because of all of the items they are right now. as matt said, we will be converting the full bath back to the half bath that was initially permitted in 2002. i will be here if you have any questions. >> okay. thank you. do we have any public comment on this item? with that, public comment is closed. commissioner moore?

>> i moved to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously. that will place us on your discretionary review calendar. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you as a public

discretionary review for a building permit application. for the demolition of a 3250 square foot single-family dwelling. and new construction of a four story 5900 square-foot single-family dwelling that would be sent back about 18.5 feet from the street. without going into details, we have a deal that the d.r. requester and the project sponsor have arrived at, and we are recommending that the commission take the d.r. to honor the agreement as represented in the drawings in your packet. there are -- the reason for that is there had been substantial amassing changes, still code compliant, but if the d.r. was withdrawn, it would have required free notification of the project. with that, let me itemize those changes in words.

the project sponsor revised the plans to essentially move the garage portion of the ground floor level garage further towards the street, still within the required front steps back to allow it to break up this year massing of the four story building and to allow an opportunity for landscaping to cover and permeate the front setback and undulate over the garage, which is allowed in this condition given the slope. and then some additional massing changes that occurred on the east side of the building to further articulated the massing in a way that was acceptable to the d.r. requester is in terms of ameliorating the apparent massing. and with the use, i would like to turn it over to the d.r. requester and project sponsor. this concludes my report. >> thank you.

>> if both sides are in agreement, there is no need for a presentation from either side. >> do you want to come up? >> unless you want to enter into the record the project sponsor and the d.r. requester that you are both in agreement. why don't we do that? [indiscernible] >> are you the d.r. requester. >> i'm here with my husband. >> are you the d.r. requester? >> i am. we would be happy not to have to go through the whole presentation, but i do have some materials that if we don't have to do it, i would still like to become part of the public record >> you can put them right there and i will add them. >> great. >> project sponsor? >> we are in agreement. >> very good. >> okay. somebody needs to make a motion to take d.r. >> so moved. motion to take d.r. and approve the project.

we are happy to hear people coming to a mutual agreeable understanding to modify the building that it fits all people judge objectives. thank you. >> i would like to add that they will be great neighbors and we look forward to having them in the neighborhood. >> is there a second? >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to take it and approve the project as revised. [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously. that will place us in item 22. this is a discretionary review. >> thank you, have a wonderful night. >> thank you very much. >> happy neighbors. >> work your magic. >> thanks. good evening.

staff architect. >> folks, we still have a hearing going on. >> the item before you is a public initiated risks -- request for a discretionary review of a building permit application. for excavation of a two car garage and basement level bedroom. a 5-foot 3-inch horizontal site addition and removal of the gable roof at the ground floor at the rear, and a 12 story -- 12-foot horizontal rear expansion of the second floor to an existing two story single-family house for a total of 550 square feet additional. there is a 2-foot side yard that is to be retained. the building's historic resource category -- the reason for the d.r., the adjacent neighbor to the east is concerned with three main issues.

the roof deck will create a new impact to privacy, and three, the addition will diminish morning light to the d.r. requester's property. the d.r. requester proposed alternatives include expanding into the basement space and eliminating the second story addition, keeping the slope of the existing roof, so as to do number 3, eliminate or restrict the potential for roof deck. public comments to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support. in light of the d.r. request, the team rereviewed the project and found that the proposal does not present any exceptional or extraordinary conditions with respect to the residential design guidelines, and the surrounding development patterns are respected. specifically, the height and depth of the first and second floor additions are modestly sized and conform to the residential design guidelines to be compatible with the existing building scale and midblock open space. and the orientation of the

proposed building and its windows, and distance to the adjacent properties is sufficient to minimize impacts to light and privacy. and the proposed roof deck at the second level is sized and setback 5 feet from the side lot lines to help ensure and maintain privacy. staff finds that the project meets guidelines and recommends a project does not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed as it is not present any extraordinary circumstances. this concludes my presentation. i'm here for questions. >> thank you. is the first d.r. requester here >> i got here not knowing what to expect. it has been great. >> now you know. >> it is very educational for me i am the owner and occupant at folsom street. on the package that you have, i would like to point out that they identified the adjacent

property incorrectly. so one prior to that, i believe. they correctly identify the adjacent property. if i could use the overhead. my lot is 18 feet wide, it is not 25. that is the second story there in the back and it will be raised to a third story. that concerns me for the morning sunlight. it truly does, and i am in the mission. that is a phased -- that is 60 2°. when i got this, this is 60 2° right on my back window. what concerns me more was the flat roof on the second or third floor, listening to commissioner moore earlier this afternoon about the flat roofs, it was of up up -- utmost concern to me. my proposal was they slope to

the roof, just slow bits i don't have to worry about them or their predecessors ever making a rooftop deck. that was not appealing to the applicant, and there was some research, this is why it is not appealing to the applicant. this is the applicant. this gentleman. he has been sued by the san francisco district attorney for fraudulent building applications i am the only one that could afford the 700-dollar bill to come here and speak on my behalf me and my neighbors, if the proposed third story it meets all of the residential requirements, that is great. i'm not opposed to allowing someone to build their property. slope the roof, please so i don't have to worry about mr. sancho and his shenanigans making a rooftop deck that is the only visible access to

downtown san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. i would call someone else up here. >> for the record, just to be clear about the error in the package identifying the subject property and its relation to its property, if i could use the overhead to clarify that if needed. i apologize. >> it is right in the first couple. [indiscernible] >> speak into the microphone. >> this is the subject property, and this is mr. troubled's property. i think it is completely wrong in the aerial image.

>> that is correct. thank you. >> seeing there is no one else in the audience, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> okay. , public comment is closed. commissioners? >> i push -- i need to bring to the commission's attention that the project as proposed is not buildable, and the reason for that is that it -- the garage slope, the purpose of this building is to add a 28% garage slope. it is not possible because the car bottom -- bottomed out at the top and the bottom. that is door number 81. in order to make the garage work , he would have to lift the building up. i should not be sitting right here.

they put it in front of us and say it is an approvable project. do you see that, mr. winslow? it says under the garage. the car cannot actually get into the garage, get bottoms out. that would -- i wanted to bring that to your attention because this proposal as it is, aside from the d.r. requester makes this project not buildable. we should be noting that because we would be causing later problems when there is an approval that cannot be realized as it is. those are my comments. do you see this? i make a motion that we do take

the d.r. and disapprove. >> second. >> you are just moving the third floor addition also? >> no, i'm denying the project because the project is not buildable. >> very good, there is a motion that has been seconded to take the d.r. disapprove the d.r. application. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. >> i would like to take a moment and close this hearing in honor of the recently deceased -- that being said, meeting is adjourned

>> thank you. >> my name is jan an wong a regional paralyzing in the bureau i did not see might have as at management in the beginning which my career i have a master in civil engineering i thought i'll follow a technical career path i scombrie being able to create a comprehensive plan implement and shape it into realty love the champs of

working through cost quality schedule political and environmental structuring and finding the satisfaction of seeing the project come into fruition i've also take advantage of the sfpuc training program yunt my certification i see the flow from the pipeline into the tunnel one by one and i also had several opportunities to attend and make presentations at conferences also as a tape recording san francisco resident authenticity rewarding to know the work i do contribute to the quality of life my life and those around me

[roll call] >> clerk: also, please note that executive director shireen mcspadden is present. at this time, the commission asks that you silence all mobile phones and sound producing devices. >> thank you. and before proceeding, i would like my fellow commissioners to be aware that there is now a way to let me know if you wish to speak. there is a little place to push on the screen. your name will pop up, and you will be called in the order in which you push that button, if it works. if not, we'll just figure out another way. thank you. may i have a motion to approve the april 3 agenda? >> so moved. >> thank you. do i have a second? >> second. >> any changes or modifications? he