substandard head height and electrical, you name it. >> when did the tenant vacate? >> that i don't know. i know when the owners took possession of the property, it wasvay can't. >> -- vacant. >> we have a two unit building. substandard or not, go ahead. >> i see it here. it is open storage. >> that is used by renters previously. >> when. >> maybe by nannies today or before, a nanny suite. >> you showed a notice to vacate. what date is on it? >> there is no date on it. the last resident who also lives on the street was in, and she was ordered to vacate because

the building was being sold to the current owners. >> what year? >> right after the interim controls. >> thank you. any question for the city attorney or zoning administrator. was the requirement to remove the unit under section 317, the new illegal unit in effect in 2015? >> i believe 2015 is when it took exact. i am not sure of the exact timing. i can check on that. >> that is a whole new light that you removed the unit. there was a process you needed to go through with us. >> to clarify in that aspect. the section that is applicable from 217 would be that it actually the qualifications

about reducing the size of the unit. the unit is still there, i believe. >> it is there? >> correct. >> why is it in planning? >> in staff i did not learn about this until the original notice went out about legs than two months ago. one of the neighbors across the street informed me about the unit. i sent e-mails to the architect asking about the unit. the original responses were not completely clear until i dug deeper. i got a response, yes, a unit had been there. my question is there a kitchen and bathroom in the space and the answer was yes. >> we need to go -- if the unit is no longer there, we need to go through it. >> it has been removed. we know the date every move. it was no not removed with a

permit. we have to somehow prove the date it was removed and back date to when the ordinance for removal wasn' was was then enac. >> commissioner koppel. >> vice president joel koppel: . i was going to commend the architect on the substantial set backs on the upper floors that made this tolerable. from the front it is not going to seem as big as four stories is visually. that is what i was going to say initially, then some other stuff came up. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: move to continue this project with further clarification on the background regarding the existing unit and we have to look at it again. >> second. >> do we have a proposed date?

>> i would be asking mr. horn in terms what do you believe from your side it will take to find all of the information and then the project has to be reconsidered given what has been found. >> that could work. i think i have done initial research to try to figure this out. again, permit wise or history wise, the eviction request. i did with the rent board and reverse phone book lookups. i am not able to concretely discuss the permitting history or dates of the unit. if i had they would have been presented to you today. iit may take it from the

neighborhood group to present a narrative to describe what happened to the unit. >> that doesn't fit so well with me because it is an incentive for folks to do things without permit. if it is off the books we are going to look the other way. >> off the books in terms of research. >> i meant for the project sponsor. >> exactly, i agree very much. >> so it seems like we need to find away. commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: if there was a unit. there i is a c.u. is a c.u. re. >> there is no work done in the space. it is still the way the owners purchased the property. nothing is taken away. it is still in the same form.

i decided not to represent it as a unit because it never showed up in any 3-r report or any addresses anywhere. it was basically a glorified crawlspace. >> at one point it was occupied as a unit? >> based upon the information that came in later within the past i think three years somebody produced a letter. perhaps this is what the gentleman is referring to. the lady rented it as an office. that was the first we heard of an actual tenant. >> is there a kitchen in there. >> a cook top and some kind of a sink. >> is that the space, the crawlspace where the unit is or where this is occupied? >> it is where the garage would be, the new unit is back behind that. if we look in the cross section,

for instance, i would say the unit is about here back to here someplace. i am sorry no, it is from the front to the middle. the new unit is back here, and so we didn't take anything away. it is there. in this proposal, i guess you could say we are moving it back towards the rear. >> that is what we have to find out during this interim period. >> the first thing i would ask perhaps the city inspector together with somebody from planning goes to look at what is there, if there is a toilet or kitchen hookup of any kind. we need documentation of that. then the existing condition that is part of the application needs to depict what is there, not what we would like it to be. that is the way it requires us

to look at something. that is not judgment. that is the fact. i would strongly suggest to mr. horn that we find an inspector to help us with that, including perhaps talking to the neighbor who lives there. including the corona heights neighbors presenting the background to get the facts on the table. no judgment implied. basically clarifying the type of information we need to have for an educated judgment. from there on, you will know how to steer the project into modification of what is in front of us or next steps we need to take as commissioners. >> mr. teak, did you want to say something? >> yes, i did find that the legislation that created the unauthorized dwelling unit definition and requirement that you legalize any such unit or

get a c.u. resolution took effect in april 2016. there was a department of building inspection complaint that was opened from a tenant who suspected that the extra unit there was illegal. that was in september of 2015. also, in september of 2015, that complaint to dpi was closed at the request of the complaint. there was no action filed by dpi. they started to look into it and the person who made the complaint withdrew the complaint. in 2015 is when the property changed hands as well. i assume there is a connection between that timeline. if, in fact, that unit ceased to be used as a unit at that time, then possibly it may not fall under the definition of udu and be under the same definition we would use today.

i think it is a good idea to take a further look at that. if we did derm that it is unauthorized it needs to be represented as unauthorized dwelling unit it which is not currently before you today. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: the issue for me is if the project sponsor bought the property with the tenant in it, the tenant filed the complaint, complaint withdrawn. was there consideration to leave. was it illegal buyout? it is a whole new can of worms for me. >> similarly, there was a date when the rent board changed laws to start requiring buyouts to be required as well. we will check into that as well. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this may require more than six weeks.

perhaps you could come back to recommend when it is. is that done? there are a lot of loose pieces. >> it is easier to continue to a date certain. >> i wanted to weigh in on the issues of the project itself. as with commissioner koppel i generally like the setback design and i think it is appropriate. if it were up to me, i would much rather see a larger edu or second unit than two car parking. we have been consistent with that. if there is, you know, a need for reducing that fourth floor i would rather it go to housing as well. >> there is a motion to jul july 11th.

(roll call). >> that is 2018-c.u.a. 2675. conditional use authorization. >> planning department staff. you have before you a request for conditional use authorization to permit a retail and conditional use. the city center special district and height and bulk district it involves the improvements to the 22000 square foot at the southeast corner in parking lot f for a petsmart location. there are no petsmart locations

within san francisco. the ground floor access will include retail sales, grooming, boarding and day camp. upper floor from parking e will be primarily by retail sales. dedicated space for adoption agencies such as humane society and local shelters to display pets. there will be no alterations to ex steerier under construction. the proposed petsmart would increase within the vicinity from 18% to 19% as measured by total storefronts. since the proposed retail use is greater than 20,000 square feet planning code requires commission consider the contents of economic impact analysis which was prepared by

third-party and in the packets. the analysis concludes the project is not to erode exists pet store in san francisco as there is excess demand and that is not being captured by businesses within the city as well as considerable growth over the next decade. department finds it is consistent with the general plan and is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the planning code including the city center special sign district. this concludes my presentation. i am available for further questions. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. >> good afternoon, it is a pleasure to be here. i am diana with petsmart. i am excited to discuss the proposed project with you.

those not familiar with petsmart. we are a pet retailer specializing in sale of pet food, pet accessories and supplies. we also include in store uses such as grooming, training, adoptions and boarding as chris mentioned. our vision is to be the trusted pet partner to our pet parents and pets throughout the moments of their lives. the proposed petsmart will be 222000 square feet -- 22000 square feet. this will include approximately 3500 pet hotel, 200 square foot training area and 1200 square foot grooming salon on lower level. this will include dog wash for

those do it yourself parents who want to get hands wet and soapy. upper level in addition to retail sales we will have a dedicated 300 square feet pet adoption area as chris also mentioned. in an effort to reduce unwanted pets and selling cats and dogs, we partner together with our nonprofit petsmart charities to provide space within stores to adopt pets out to forever homes. petsmart charities is one of the largest animal welfare charities in the country and they provide millions of dollars for animal welfare. through our adoption events in the stores we saved over

8 million pet lives. with city center the first store in san francisco we are excited to be part of the community to be provide products and services and pet care to all neighbors with two or four legs or wings. i would like to thank you for your time and i will turn the microphone over to mark and rose to speak to the land use aspects of the project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. just a few quick points. as you all know, the city center mall is unique for san francisco. it is a 1960s style shopping mile in the middle of the heart of the city. it has a history of occupancy by national retailers dating back to the 1960s. in 2017, this commission approved construction of the

building that petsmart is going into. the ceu is a second phase of the project. this project has the support of the neighborhood association which has been active in the redevelopment of the city center over the years. there is a petition signed by 720 people in support of the project. a few points on the economic study which i thought were very, very interesting. san francisco has a tremendous unmet demand for pet store spending, and petsmart is expected revenues would capture 10% of the unmet demand meaning there is a significant amount of league age -- leakage that will take place if the petsmart store opens. this area is under serve would by pet stores. there are none within a quarter

mile radius of the city center. that is the larger of the two that you use when evaluating retailers. the lowest pet store is 0.4 miles and that is a formula retailer. closest groomer is a half-mile away. closest on site day kay is a mile and-a-half away. with the occupancy history, it will not erode spending in other pet stores, none of which are nearby. we ask you to approve. we are here for any questions. thank you. >> president melgar: we will now take public comment on this item. there is no public comment. public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: in keeping with tradition of the city center petsmart is a

responsible cour player. i move to approve. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is a good location for this particular store, giving access to ample parking which you need when you come with animals. the fact we supported this location as being retail extraordinary tha that is the pe where they should be and that they are competing. you will recall a few years back this is the perfect location. glad that they are here. >> nothing further there is a motion that is seconded to approve with conditions. (roll call).

>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 16. 39443944a geary boulevard. >> the item before you is request for conditional use authorization at 3944a geary boulevard for change of use. cosmetology and beauty salon with accessory foot chair massage use to massage establishment with the second floor of a two story commercial building. in 2009, a permit application

was issued to allow the use for the message. it will be a planning enforcement case for the proposed use. they had the team state certified licenses for the california therapy california which allowed them exempt from the requirements. as far as issues and considerations the project sponsors conducted outreach efforts and the petition with 48 signatures. to date the planning department received one e-mail in support of the project. in addition the project sponsors conducted a neighborhood survey of the business within the 3900 to 4400 blocks of geary boulevard and most are restaurants, automotive, banks and real estate offices. only one other massage use on

this portion of geary boulevard. the other one is on third avenue. the project sponsors have a massage permit in good standing with the department of public health and indicate those services will provide licenses of petition. the department's recommendation is approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioners good afternoon. phil wesser. sharon young who has been with the department for 20 years gave you the full low down. this is the last item on the agenda. i will do the visual part of the program here. you probably passed this location many, many times. it has been in existence for 10

years. wonderful family-run business. neighborhood business. i would ask them to come up here, please. this is the manager and her husband. when i went in there, what struck me the most was theireldest child, daniel who i bonded to immediately because he is attending my old middle school. their other daughters to go al lamonth. it is a well run and well respected neighborhood business. as you can see even the next door neighbor's church wrote a letter that you have in your packet on their behalf. the restaurant underneath wrote the letter. total support. no opposition whatsoever. that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions or comments. we are here.

thank you so much, commissioners. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: approval. >> second. >> there is a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions. (roll call). month. >> so moved commissioners that passed unanimously 6-0 placing it on item 17. 15 el sereno court. discretionary review.

>> good evening, president melgar, commissioners, staff architect. the item before you is request for discretionary review of building permit application of 2018-003-2230 for construction of the horizontal addition to a building within the existing footprint. it is category p. the reason for the dr is john and patricia lee, adjacent neighbor goes to the west are concerned with one issue. that is the addition will block the sightline from the existing profit line window. public comment the department has received no letters in opposition and one letter in support of the project. the project was reviewed per the design guidelines. staff finds the circumstances is

not exceptional or extraordinary with respect to the issues. although the sightline from the living room property line window is not protected it has a reasonable good neighbor measure. the limited extent of the addition in conjunction with four-foot set back from the lot line window allows the diagonal views to be retained. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to respond to any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the d.r. requester. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am john lee, owner of 19 el sereno court. i am here to object to a small

portion of the addition to number 15 el sereno court. i do not object to the right to improve the home but i object to six square feet to the addition that will cut off morning light to my living room. when it was planned in the 1920s, the developers used the city beautiful principals involved since 1900 to create a well planned community. during the construction of the park from 1926 to 1950, the meyer brothers were very concerned how the home would impact the neighbor's home. they intended to maximize views of individual homes by curb and streetlights careful placement of building and consistent architectural style. they went on to say this includes low rooflines to

subordinate structures to take advantage of open sightlines and vistas. the mire brothers stated this planned development made view an essential ingredient and appealing streetscapes with hilly topography. these are directly taken from the park residential design guidelines adopted by the san francisco planning commission on october 21, 1999. page after page of the park residential design guidelines adopted by the san francisco planning commission speaks to the intent of view as a major feature of the homes. the guidelines clearly state quote lower rooflines and story set backs are a part of the view preservation fo for neighbors ed

quote. number 15 is an example of lower rooflines to preserve light, ventilation and view of number 19. i would like to direct your view to this picture on the overhead. this is number 19. this is number 15, my neighbor. you can see that number 15, the top story is set back to line with the rear edge of my home, and there is a corner window here, corner window picks up the morning sun and illuminates my living room. this addition will end that altogether. number 19 and number 15 el seren

necourt were constructed at the same time 19 in 1939 and completed in 1940. number 15 was completed in 1941. both homes were planned and constructed at the same time. it is no accident that 19 has a corner window overlooking the lower roof and top story set back of number 15. meyer brothers designed the corner window into 19. there are only two points of ventylition in the 19 living room. one window overlooking 15 and one overlooking the rear yard. today a builder would provide an easement over 15 for the owner of 19. in 1940 good neighbors would not interfere with one another. in 1940, homeowners would respect the neighbor and follow the wishes of the developer.

i would like to show you a picture now of the living room. from is the living room at number 19. you can clearly see it is offset to the left. it is a definite corner window. it hasn't been some addition. it was put in there by the builder. the character of the living room at 19 will be changed if the addition at 15 is allowed. the morning light, ventilation and view built into the house 79 years ago will be destroyed for six square feet of addition of number 15. meyer brothers wanted to encored light, ventilation and views in their home. i just have a short bit left.

>> you have two minutes. >> you want me to quit now? >> yes, you will come back after their presentation. >> is there any public comment in support of the d.r. reques requester? okay. we will hear from the project sponsor. >> hello. my husband and i live at 15 el elser ia el sereno court. it is our only home. our goal to raise our family in the house in this neighborhood, to have children attend the local public schools which they do. as children are growing it is coollation of books and clothes is getting larger with them. as they become teenagers the

need for morning showers and personal appearance take time. we have one full bathroom and it is not enough. we have maintained positive relationships with the different tenants in 19 over the years and become friend was the current tenants. we felt eliminating the setback would disrupt views. d.r. requester's southern view is unaffected in both plans. we keep our westward facing window in the bedroom. it is covered to maintain privacy as this looks directly into d.r. requester's living room 19. that is the living room window looking to our bedroom. they suggest maintaining privacy was the original builder's

intention. maintaining views was part of the builder's intentions. as the pictures originally show, the southeast window of our living room looks on to the wall of the neighbor on 11. it blocks our view about 45%. that was the original build. our southwest facing window in the dining room looks to number 19 deck. privacy and views are not maintain in the original designs or deck builds. the improvement clark design representatives attended the original meeting and expressed no objection goes to the original plan. at the same meeting the landlord of number 19 objected to the plans. we met with the tenants of 19 and held a cardboard wall up to see if we could minimize the impact on the view.

we found a wall placement that we feel reduced the view. i took these more modest plans to the d.r. requester to share before submitting to department. this was rejected. we feel we have made a good faith effort to compromise with the d.r. request errands have heard complaints. we feel we were consider at when we made the original designs and they further amended the plans. we feel we want the space to raise a growing family in the neighborhood we love. thank you. i will turn it over. >> i am the owner of building 11. we are charged with building this project. if i could use the overhead. >> pull the mic phone with you. >> i will add a couple things. this is about the property line

window, from a building standpoint, this is not protec protected mainly for fire reasons. from planning we understand the park to be an area that does not enjoy the protection of views. you are left to rely on good neighbors to try to preserve such things, as ann indicated, there was an effort from the outset to exercise some restraint. only about 35% of the possible building area is actually used. which is illustrated by the potential area in red and the proposal on the right. exercising this restraint allows for a set of benefits not the least of which is actually enjoyment of most of the view that is already enjoyed by number 19, depending on where you stand. you could say that is about 70% of the view. it also addresses a couple of

planning concerns which are related to the preservation of light and air which we think are more than adequate. also referred to privacy and somewhat irony of the original builders building a bedroom window directly opposite a living room window. we have taken it upon ourselves to resolve that. finally, i will simply drop an illustration of the compromises. >> your time is up. >> is there any public comment in support of the project sponsor? thank you. you have a two minute rebuttal, sir. >> this is the current situation

right now. there is the corner window. there is the sightline or sun line in the morning when the sun comes up. this is the proposed addition. i don't doubt my neighbors need a second bathroom and master bedroom closet. i am asking them to reduce this bicycles square -- by 6 square feet. the amount of the paper and to change the design slightly to this. this design maintains the sightline, gives them the whole bath and closet they are requesting for the growing family, and yet maintains the integrity of my home built miyagier brothers in 1940. to just finish reading a couple things. this is from the park

improvement club. the residence design guideline adopted by the planning commission in 1999. page 24 of the design guidelines strengthens design will take full advantage of availability views. that is in there. it is further stating one of the most important features from the designer's careful integration of architecture is the view from the homes and yards. it goes on to say later quote preserve existing views as much as possible. lastly, it says it asks the question. when considering additions to homes, quote does the project respect the topography of the

site preserving views from adjacent structures. >> thank you. your time is up. >> there is one more quote. >> that is your minute. thank you. you have a two minute rebuttal. >> while we appreciate the effort to try to help us find an adequate solution. i would argue this solution the d.r. requester's solution is a pretty tough situation that forces a difficult ge option gin that any window on number 15 would necessarily be directly

opposite and aggravate or continue the problem that we have already got. in terms of the view, i would say that the d.r. requester's image of the living room looking out with 80% of the window looking south to the fantastic view and 20 or maybe 15 percent on the corner and us reducing the view by a small percentage actually isn't a huge compromise in the view. again, i don't think it is actually protected in spite of the intent of the original designers and developers. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i think the neighbors have done a good neighbor gesture in preserving a good portion of the view. i don't support making any

additional changes so the project up here so i would move to approve the project. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i support that i find th the compromise gg beyond it and being sensitive. i do not find the proposed alternative by the d.r. requester unacceptable given we need to maintain integrity of the existing buildings, and property line windows do have issues. since we are not affecting the primary window and there is a huge wonderful view as the photos show, i am fine with it as proposed. >> very good. there is a motion that has been seconded to not take it.

commissioner. (roll call). >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> okay. we are adjourned then. sustainability mission, even

though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. -

>> tenderloin is unique neighborhood where geographically place in downtown san francisco and on every street corner have liquor store in the corner it stores pretty much every single block has a liquor store but there are impoverishes grocery stores i'm the co-coordinated of the healthy corner store collaboration close to 35 hundred residents 4 thousand are children the medium is about $23,000 a year so a low income neighborhood many new immigrants and many people on fixed incomes residents have it travel outside

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> this neighborhood was lived for approximately 22 years. >> yeah, like 21 years. >> 21 years in this neighborhood. >> in the same house. >> we moved into this neighborhood six months after we got married, actually. just about our whole entire married life has been here in excel. >> the owner came to the house and we wanted to sell the house and we were like, what? we were scared at first. what are we going to do? where are we going to move into? the kids' school? our jobs? >> my name is maria. i'm a preschool teacher for the san francisco unified school district. >> my name is ronnie and i work in san francisco and i'm a driver from a local electrical company. >> we went through meta first

and meta helped us to apply and be ready to get the down payment assistant loan program. that's the program that we used to secure the purchase of our home. it took us a year to get our credit ready to get ready to apply for the loan. >> the whole year we had to wait and wait through the process and then when we got the notice, it's like, we were like thinking that. >> when we found out that we were settling down and we were going to get approved and we were going to go forward, it was just a really -- we felt like we could breathe. we have four kids and so to find a place even just to rent for a family of six. and two dogs. >> we were going to actually pay more for rent and to own a house. >> it feels good now to have to move. it feels for our children to

stay in the neighborhood that they have grown in. they grew up here and they were born here. they know this neighborhood. they don't know anything outside san francisco. >> we really have it. >> we'd love to say thank you to the mayor's office. they opened a door that we thought was not possible to be opened for us. they allowed us to continue to live here. we're raising our family in san francisco and just to be able to continue to be here is the great lesson.

[gavel]. >> chair fewer: good afternoon, everyone. the meeting will come to order.