to the project sponsor some of the issues that were raised. i think isn't this within the northeast industrial corridor this -- >> yes, it's within that area. >> so this particular building, right, was p.d.r. they were out of compliance when we did the rezoning, so they kind of got grandfathered in. now they're reaping that benefit by getting a concession to extend to even more the office space. so i'm just uncomfortable with what we're doing in the context of what's going in the neighborhood. i don't want to disadvantage the p.d.r. space on treat street that is barely hanging on for what used to be the northeast industrial corridor. because we're still there and people are still providing blue collar jobs and it's important to protect it.

and as a city, we have reiterated policies that do that. so i don't want to do that to the businesses back there. so i do think there's some work that still could be done to relocate the entrance of the garage to harrison street. i think that at 120%, the extra b.m.r. unit is not a b.m.r. unit. i said this at the last hearing. the market rent for that apartment in the mission right now is just barely above 120% b.m.r. for the past couple of years, the a.m.i. has been riding faster than the c.p.i., which is what the rent control increase is based on. so i can see a scenario if things keep going this way, and in a couple of years that b.m.r. unit will be more expensive than the market. first of all, it's business

address for your owner because they're going to have an upside down unit and still have to rent it through the housing and go through the lottery, but to the community it doesn't benefit. so i would like to see, as commissioner hill has stated, more work on that, on providing more affordability. in exchange for the great benefit that this project sponsor is getting from a potential office allocation that was really just luck because it got grandfathered in during a rezoning. so that's where i am today. if we're voting, i will be voting against it. but i think it could come back after a little more work. commissioner fung. >> actually, the project, if it was done purely to expand the office and the -- utilize the

expansion of the housing to create that opportunity, it could have very well been done as a code compliance. it's only a question of some level of cost, which probably wasn't all that great. what they're talking about is the -- redo a little bit of the mechanical. the housing component is going to have to overlap the existing building somewhat. but they're going to have to wind up doing some structural work to the building anyway because they're cutting all kinds of openings there. they're going to wind up merging the two lots so you don't have four-hour openings between the two. so it very well could have been a code compliance, but i'm prepared to support the project on the following basis. there is a nexus between the

creation of additional office space and housing. we haven't seen very much of that, and i think that i'm supporting this one because those three exceptions that they have are not huge exceptions. they could have been dealt with relatively easily but were not. but i'm prepared to support this project. >> so i happen to be one of the bigger supporters of office throughout a lot of our discussions regarding central zoning in downtown. those opinions were such because of the parts of town we were talking about. on streets like mission, harrison, and fulsome, i definitely think they are appropriate for office, but in the financial district. i have a problem seeing the office in this neighborhood which has been historically p.d.r. i definitely would prioritize housing over office at 2300

harrison. >> i would support the opinions expressed by president melgar to the extent that digging just a little bit deeper -- i said i would be in support of the ideas expressed by president melgar and the only thing i would be asking is that we dig deeper in appropriate unit design, as we're looking very carefully at residential, how we improve on it. i would ask that we clearly look at avoiding bedrooms and increasing the number of units. >> the thing that i'm afraid of is a code-complying office project coming back because that actually puts us in a worse spot than we are now. so i'm a little bit along the same thoughts as commissioner fung, but we would have to improve the quality of the units

there with the necessary bedrooms and some type of screening for the equipment and things like that. >> i mean, i agree we need more time, but not a lot of time or -- i think if we say it does got to be a housing project, it's going to take a long time to get back through this process. but i think we need to be convinced that the office allocation, which is a discretionary action by us, provides additional benefit for affordable housing. i think you're all relatively [ indiscernible ] -- but we've seen that happen even without the office project. i think we need to be realistic. we're not going to solve every problem. this is a relatively small parcel. it's used for parking now. i would like to see it developed, a ton of office. so let's go the office route and get affordable housing and move on. i would move for it to continue.

i don't want to see a lang time, a couple of weeks hopefully. hopefully we can get a project that can move forward. we wouldn't have everybody's support, but we can move on this project. >> u.s.m. has given a list of things that they would like to see you folks in negotiations. can you let us know what your thoughts are. >> we have been exchanging mous since february. so we've been exchanging them back and forth. there are a number of items that we definitely agree, a number of items where we moved and did something. i know there are a few items that they're requesting that we cannot provide. so we feel like we've given as much as we can on that aspect, but obviously we've had discussions as of recent. >> okay. thank you.

>> i just want to chime in and say that part of the reason why we've repeatedly heard this is we've asked for things and they haven't come back. so if we are going to come back, i want to make sure that there's actual movement that's made, again addressing the circulation and traffic issues. actually, we keep hearing that there is some sort of conversations or agreements. we need more information than just a repeated blurb about that. we need to understand more about the quality of the units. i think commissioner moore has brought that up several times. so please, please, please come back with actual work done on those issues. >> commissioners, just so i'm understanding clearly in terms of direction for staff and the

project sponsor to continue working through, it sounds like we want to work through the unit design quite a bit. we want to look at potentially increasing the number of units that are in the project. >> b.m.r. units is what i heard, affordability. >> what about the quantity of units? i got an implication -- >> i don't think anybody said that. >> okay. just making clear, because i want to make sure that we can go back to the sponsor and kind of continue working with them on it. >> but also the traffic issue. >> correct. >> anything else? >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter for two weeks. that will place it on september 5. on september 5 you have 3333 california and the power station. >> can i suggest that it's going to take more than two weeks. i know you want to do this

quickly, but i think it's going to take more than two weeks. i don't want to drag it out too much longer. two weeks would mean in one week we would have to have a report to you. >> is there anything in october? >> there is, but you have -- i mean, all of your calendars are impacted through october 24, quite honestly. you have a joint hearing on october 23 with d.p.h. you have a joint hearing with rec and park on october 17. the demolition that hasn't gone away is scheduled for october 10. pick your poison unless you want to continue it to the 24. >> can we do it 19 or 26. i know things change. >> you have the racial and social equity training. >> i would say october 10. >> that's the demo leg. >> i don't think it's going to happen. >> i think it is unlikely to

happen on that day, just so you know. i don't have that for certain, but it's fairly likely like that will not be coming to you on october 10. so that might be a good day to do it. >> very good, commissioners. on that motion to continue this matter to october 10. [vote]. >> that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. in case anyone is for the item 21, that item has been continued to october 17. commissioners, that will place us on item 15 this is a large project authorization.

>> good afternoon. i guess it's almost evening. linda hogeland, department staff. the project before you is a large project authorization for the proposed project. the project includes the demolition of a two-storey 12,880 square foot commercial building and construction of a five-storey approximately 53-feet, 9-inch tall, 45,564 square foot residential building. the project will include 57 dwelling units, 51 bicycle spaces. the dwelling unit mix includes 20 studios, 11 one-bedroom units and 26 two-bedroom units. the project includes 5,699 square feet of usable open space with a combination of private and open planning space. pursuant to the planning code,

the project sponsor has elected to use the state density bonus law. the project does not propose any offstreet parking. to date the department has received one letter in support of the project from the soma. opposition has been received from the home owners association from the adjacent live/work building at 15 lucerne street from a home owner on gillbert street, all of which express concerns about the proposed density, parking, traffic, construction, and impacts to light and air. under the state density bonus law, planning code section 206.6, the project is requesting five waivers and development standards, including height, bay windows, rear yard, narrow street height, and open space. so the project at 755 brannan, the base density would permit a

residential project that permitted 34,# 433 gross residential square feet. in this case the ratio is equal to 76%. 76% of the project is equal to 43 dwelling units. the on-site inclusionary for this project is 19%, which would result in eight affordable units. the project sponsor would be required to satisfy the remainder of the inclusionary by calculating the total fees of the project and applying the remaining obligation, which is 24%. the project will provide 57 new dwelling units to the city's housing stock, including 20 studios, 11 one-bedroom and 26 two-bedroom units. will designate 19% of the total base project as part of the inclusionary affordable housing program and will replace an existing commercial development building. currently it does not have any

housing so no tenants will be displaced. the project sponsor is present and prepared a presentation, and this concludes staff's presentation. >> okay. you've got five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are the project sponsor. the 755 brannan street project is a residential density project located in western soma community plan area. the site is well served by transit and other residential services. and fulfills the western soma area and objectives of promoting the production of housing developments that provide for families and special population needs with a mix of unit sizes and affordablity. it complies with design standards for new development to not that i can a few. the project before you will make a positive contribution to the city's housing goals and

highlights of the project include 57 total dwelling units, 46% two bedroom/two-bathroom units. payment of the affordable housing fee on the bonus units. no vehicular parking on site. and the density project is not seeking any concessions or incentives. i will now introduce the project architect who can go over some design details with you. >> good afternoon. i appreciate your time and efforts under this heated conditions. so this is a ground floor plan. we've gone through some revisions with the plan after the p.p.a. and some coordination with the planning staff. the lot is bounded on three streets, bute place is 16 feet

wide, lucerne is 35 feet wide, and brannan is a very wide street. in talking to planning, we actually brought the entrance onto brannan street which made a lot of sense to us. and we made the rear yard along bute place, bute place being 16 feet and 25% of our building depth from lucerne back to bute place became 16 feet. so now in essence there is an open space along bute place of 32 feet, doubling the feeling of the open space. and on the ground floor, we have a series of private outdoor open spa spaces and kind of walk-ups so that there's some active use along bute place, which is activate minimal active use

right now. basically it's a double-loaded corridor. there is an extra area in the front and for bicycles at the corner of lucerne and brannan street for some amenities in the project. a lot of the utilities are back along the far end along lucerne and butte place. so ... okay ... so this is what it looks like from the corner of butte place -- sorry, of lucerne and brannan street. and the other rendering shows what it would look like along

butte place. i'm here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, sir. >> so we met several times community organizations and neighbors. we have the support of some. there is one issue that we have not been able to resolve, however, and that issue involves two units in the 50 lucerne live-work development which is immediately south of the project site. those two units have property line windows facing our development that would need to be closed up. as they presented to you the project has a wide rear yard setback. as he said, this was developed in consultation with planning and consistent with the urban design guidelines, and it was necessary given the incredibly nair width of butte place. we cannot provide a setback that would keep the property line

windows at 50 lucerne street intact while retaining 57 units and providing the building with appropriate light and air. the commission is likely to hear comments from residents at 50 lucerne street. there is a declaration of use limitation. it was recorded at the time the building was built and all 50 lucerne neighbors were aware of that it requires property line windows get removed if there is a development at our site that would require it. i think my time is up. >> thank you. we may call you back up if we have questions. is there any public comment on this item? i don't have any speaker cards, but anyone who wants to come. >> hello, i'm a resident at 50 lucerne street and i'm authorized to speak on behalf of the neighbors at 50 lucerne, 50 lucerne h.o.a., 5 to 45 lucerne, and as well as 11 to 161

gilbert. so at this time we are requesting a continuance, a minimum of 30 days for a couple of outstanding issues that have gone unresolved with the project sponsor which are outlined in this presentation. the three things in particular is that the things that have gone unaddressed is the protecting of 50 lucerne. while they absolutely do have the right to build along the property line, they have not done any research or presented any plans how they plan to shore up our foundation to minimize any structural damage or any settlement or movement to our building. the second issue has to do with the relocation of the placement of their trash. so currently the proposal is to put trash for 57 new units along the property line wall, which is the opening to the only opening windows for the 50 lucerne units, as well as the 5 to 56

lucerne residents which i'll discuss a little bit more. and then finally addressing the severe reduction of light and air for all the surrounding neighbors about this particular project. we have actually consulted with an architect at dave baker that is confident that we could propose additional or alternative plans that will still meet the number of units that they're looking to do but consistent with the san francisco planning guidelines to ensure that light and air is taken into consideration for existing neighbors. but most importantly in the latest breaking news, the project sponsor has actually approached our h.o.a. with a diploma to enclose our windows. a day before receiving that letter, our legal counsel has actually recused himself for a different conflict of interest. so we have obtained new legal counsel as of last friday. so before any additional proposals or discussions with the project planner, we are

asking for a continuance to do our due diligence, to research the foundation, to explore some alternative plans, as well as get proper legal counsel on how we continue discussions with the project builder. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon with again, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. it's probably two or three times commissioner moore has requested i slow down and work to annunciate. we are in support of this project here today. we think this is good housing. taking two storeys with no residents, adding 57 new homes. there is no car parking on site. there is more than one to one. i believe 61 bicycle spots on the site as well. and when we think about the types of projects that we want to see high numbers of two-bedroom units, which i know the city is in desperate,

desperate need of and the location just makes a lot of sense with all that is happening in soma and central soma to be able to had much-needed homes is really, really crucial. we ask you to approve it today. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. i am the community organizer for soma philippinea. i want to thank you for your continued support of our district. so as you know, the community's really rich history and culture has been part of the soma for more than a hundred years and we continue to thrive in resilience and protect our neighbor in spite of rounds of displacements throughout the 70s, late 80s and through both tech booms that have compromised our safety and homes. as many plans come online, we ask that this commission as

stewards of the city's built environment seek in these developments concrete ways to mitigate all and any negative impacts and also advocate for elements that would be beneficial to the community. so that being said, we wanted to acknowledge that 755 brannan development has agreed to support our efforts to increase the visibility of our community and the cultural district to go through new public art, signage, way finding, special crosswalks, and street furniture. specifically, they've committed to include also special bike rack designs as part of their project. so we appreciate their commitment on that part to help demark the city's philippineo district. we hope the commission will continue to advocate for the communi communities specifically us so we can stay in the city. i have letters for each of you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hi, i'm the owner and resident at 50 lucerne. i wanted to just echo what was said about the light and air conditioners that we have in addition to the foundational concerns and request a continuance here. in addition to that, one point that i think hasn't really been addressed is the -- so this project is using the density bonus, and in doing so is getting a waiver on the narrow street requirement. with that, the current setback on butte place is 16 feet. i would propose an alternative, if that setback could be changed at all, even one foot less in that direction, that would be nearly an additional 1,000 square feet for the building which could certainly provide room to move the building away from 50 lucerne, addressing the light and air conditioners. so it just seems like there

could be a conclusion reached that would both benefit the project and the neighborhood. so i'd again just like to request continuance. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm the president of the 50 lucerne street h.o.a. i'm french with an accent. i'm just here to request and authorize the request for a continuance. we have just been notified on august 5 that our legal counsel decided to drop us. we have been searching for counsel and we have hired and retained a new legal counsel. they have told us that they are not in the timeline -- they couldn't really give us a positive or negative feedback on the project.

they are -- definitely will be able to do that within 30 days. so we are just emphasizing that we are requesting a continuous. thank you.

>> i understand. it is also a project delivery issue schedule -wise. >> we have met with them many times. most recently was at the planning department. this property line window issue is not resolving. we have met and talked about it a lot.

>> go ahead. did you want to weigh in on this >> i am the architect and we have done a huge number of these property line wall type projects , and we are not even putting in a basement garage. it is just a ground for slab. we have assured these neighbors on multiple occasions that this is very, very standard practice. there will be a geotech -- there will be geotechnical engineers and structural engineers that will know where their foundations are, we will do investigations to make sure that our building will not impact their building. it is very standard fair in san francisco. >> we understand that. >> commissioner moore? >> while you were there -- the issue with the property line windows windows is new to us.

-- >> can you speak, i can't hear you. >> the issue with property line windows is new. we are hearing that pretty much only through mail. could you describe to us what you learned yourself about what is behind those windows in the adjoining building. >> yeah,. >> can we get the computer, please? >> just to let you know, we were the architects for this neighboring building probably 25 years ago, and property line windows are allowed in the san francisco building code with the caveat that there is a restriction on the deed that says they have to be removed if another person builds a building next door, and they have to replace it with the proper rated wall. they are a convenience window. these units were signed, as you can see, with lots of windows in

the front, and they complied with all building codes at the time, and in fact, property line windows are not allowed to be used for light and air. that is another restriction. in fact, they are two units, the upper and the lower, that have property line windows that will be covered up. every other unit in the building are very similar with no property line windows. they have lived with that all this time, as well. >> thank you. my second question is the roof deck has a glass balustrade, which i feel is too visible from the street. is there any possibility of moving that another couple of feet back from the edge of the building? >> at the planning department's request, we moved it back 5 feet , which is what your

package shows, but then we understand there is a concern, people don't like to see those railings, and so at the last minute, if you look at this drawing, sorry, not this drawing , anyway, we did setback the railings another 2 feet all the way around. instead of being 5 feet, it is now 7-foot two back. the three to wrench -- the three-dimensional rendering, we did not have time to adjust that view, and we really can't go anymore unless we sacrifice the usable open space. right now i was able to pull it back those 2 feet and still keep the amount of usable open space that is required. >> thank you. otherwise i think it is a good building, a well-designed unit. these units have master bedrooms , but because of the

proportionality of width to depth, which is very different from the project we heard before , these are actually very well-designed units where that the nested bedroom is not really an issue. i am in support of the project and feel ready to vote on it. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. that will place us on item 16, 331 fort cesar chavez street. this is a conditional use authorization. -- 3314 cesar chavez street.

this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code 121.1 and 303 for the development on a lot larger than ten thousands where feet. the project is about 13,000 square feet and is located within the mission street neighborhood commercial transit district and the special use district. the proposed project includes the demolition of approximately 13,500 square feet one-story building, light industrial building, and the new construction of a 65 feet tall mixed use building with 30

accessory automobile parking spaces in the basement. the project includes 3,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail, and 53,500 square feet of residential use and 57 units with a mix of 281 bedrooms, 282 bedrooms, and one three-bedroom unit. it includes a rate of 20% and that would make 11 dwelling units as part of the on-site affordable housing alternative. units will be available for ownership. since the last public hearing on february 8th, 2018, subsequent to the planning commission's directions and encouraging additional outreach, the project sponsor reached out to both mission and economic development associations, as well as met twice with the representatives of the district to brisbane -- to present the revised plan.

they want to create a mural on the building's west wall. since a publication of the report, the department has received two correspondence from the nearby residents. one is in support of the project , and one expressed concerns of the noise impacts for the proposed audible alarm design of the garage engine. since a public hearing on february 8th, 2018, the project sponsor has hired a new architecture firm and has revised the design. below are our summaries of the major changes. number one, create internal bridges that move the cord or circulation of the space of the units to enhance privacy and resolve the motel effect of the neighbors passing directly in front of the adjacent units per planning commission comments, number two, reverse the unit layout and put common spaces such as living room, kitchen,

and dining area, those areas will face the inner court in the bedrooms will face the code compliant rear yard area so that privacy is further enhanced. number three, relocate the garage entrance from the west to east side of the lot in order to take advantage of the natural grade for a shorter, less steep driveway ramp. number four, reduce the length of the central corridor on each floor by moving the stairs closer together, that's allowing for more spacious units on both sides of the building. this also brings a rooftop bulkhead back from the façade. number five, reduce the amount of excavations by reducing the ceiling height in the basement and by bringing the rear yard closer to natural grade. lastly, we designed the building to introduce a more colourful material pallet, achieve asymmetrical define, identify general location for the mural,

and incorporate character defining elements on the latino cultural district at the request of the district. lastly, in addition to the design changes, the project has revised -- needs to provide 57 residential units. the on-site inclusionary housing also increases from 14-point 5% to 20%. in conclusion, the department recommends approval with conditions as a project is on balance consistent with the mission area plan and objectives and policies of the general plan , particularly the project is in full compliance of the planning code, and is not seeking any variance or exceptions. the project exhibits the overall quality of the design that is appropriate for development and will add 57 dwelling units to the housing stock including 11 permanently affordable units. the department also finds a project to be necessary and compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood. the sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation. this concludes staff reports and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. i am one of the owners of this building, along with my partner, and i'm a long time small business owner in san francisco. i just -- i started my business in sunset sunset in 1998 as a one-man operation. we moved to the present location in 2005. it has been 14 years, and most of our workers are also san francisco local residents, and we work worked on many community improvement projects, especially in the mission. we have worked on projects like cesar chavez school improvement,

and other schools. we are very vocal in small business. the reason i want to develop this project is i feel like the building right now is being underutilized. right now we have a small office we are sharing a small office. so after the building is constructed, we're hoping to live and work in the same building as the office commercial space. it be the same as what we have now. we will remain there and i believe this is a net positive to the community and to the city and to all the stakeholders involved. it has not been an easy project for us because we are not developers, and we spend spent five years on this, and we have gone through a lot of changes to effect the different

stakeholders' comments, in one of the biggest changes we made was we have a new architect working on this, which we believe is better to address many of the concerns. with that, i would like to introduce our architect. >> good evening, commissioners. i am with rg architecture. if i could have the computer screen, too, that would be great i think he summarized the main changes since we're last at the commission, and i will just give a little bit of a narrative about how i got involved in the project. the structural engineer working with mr. chiu was at a commission hearing of mine for another project that addressed the same issue of corridors against the building that

creates a motel effect, and the original project images that you had seen over a year ago. this is the revision. includes a number of changes that specifically address both usability and also we are making a concerted effort to accept the challenge of trying to create something modern, yet also be -- create an identity within the latino cultural district. i will skip ahead as time is a little bit limited. i will skip ahead to the floor plans. for an example, as was explains, we reversed the units so that the common spaces face the courts and we removed the privacy issue by creating these bridges. these are easier to see in some

of my renderings. i will just go and jump to the renderings. again, here is a view from cesar chavez street, and i think i would like to specifically jump ahead to some of the interiors. these are the bridges that we are creating. we did meet with the representatives of the latino cultural district, and i think we picked up all of the comments that they had, which included removing glass railings, appropriate lease sized windows, introducing colours that are representative of the neighborhood, going back a few slides, some details on the storefronts that include canvas awnings and, in addition, some effort to, again challenged by the fact that we want to create

something that is contextual, but also of our time with modern detailing, but some archetype of the mission cultural district. with that, i will leave it and except any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will now open up this item for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards, but anyone who wants to provide public comment, please come up. >> hello, commission. thank you for letting me speak to you. i live directly across from this project. i'm not opposed to the project, i'm opposed to one specific part , which is the size of the driveway into the garage, and the necessity as stated in the certificate of determination and community plan evaluation that

there be an electronic sign or signal for the cars going in and out to be notified that there's somebody else going in or out. my bedroom is right there. ten, maybe 100 other people have their bedroom right there. if there is an audible noise every time somebody is going in and out of the garage, the well-being, the sleep, the quality of life for all the neighbors will go down. i am here to speak on this one narrow issue, and make sure that the architects can change it in such a way that an electronic audible sign is not needed or necessary or required in any way and apart from the fact that it is looking right into my bedroom window, i'm happy that we are getting more housing. thank you. >> thank thank you.

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am here this evening to speak in support of the project. i am very excited about this project. i think it brings a lot of good things. it is very close to the 24th street bart station, it has a good ground floor commercial component, and as you heard, the b.m.r. was revised upwards from 14.5% to 20%. also, you have the current owner is not displacing any tenants. he is the business owner, and lastly, i would like to touch on the heights. i think it is a good height at 65 feet and seven stories. as you know, just a half a block away is 1296 shock well that is nine stories and 85 feet. i think it struck a good balance thank you very much. >> thank you. nsp mac -- next speaker, please.

>> please speak into the microphone. >> my name is geraldo and i live behind to the left of the building that is being proposed to be built. i'm strongly against the height. i feel the traffic and -- it is a family -like area. i used to live on the east coast in jungle city, and i don't want to be there no more. it is a family neighborhood. i have been there for over 30 years. >> we can't hear you, please speak into the microphone. >> is a family neighborhood, i have lived there for over 30

years myself. this type of building is, i just question it thank you. >> next speaker, please. okay, public comment is now closed. commissioner moore? >> i'm happy to see the building transforming itself with many of the discussions we had on this building. i'm happy to see the support of the community for this project. we were just checking the garage as far as we can tell, the garage on the east side of the building, and there is a service station right next to it. we don't see any neighbors there would you mind explaining what you were saying? >> please come up and speak into the microphone so you are on the record? >> it doesn't matter where on cesar chavez it is going to be. we are 303 -- we're 3315, the building is not wide enough to

mitigate the sound whatsoever. if it was on easter the west, it doesn't matter, it is still going to be incredibly loud if there is an auditory signal, and there's a lot of people who have their bedroom his right there. >> thank you. perhaps we should ask, why is there a request for an audible noise rather than just a visual? >> it is likely as part of the community plan evaluation as both traffic and pedestrian safety measure to warn people coming out of there. we could specify a conditional approval to make the signal visual in nature, or limit the amount of sound that comes off so it is only above the ambient noise level rather than the blaring sounds. you can add that condition onto the property. >> okay. thank you. >> i think having that awareness is important. i'm sure there are safety measures, the street is a very

wide street, but i would just ask that we are sensitive to an observation like that. the unit design is fine, and i'm glad we were able to get out of the motel type response to housing here. the only question i had and still have is, i hope you are having a plan for the retail. this is a rather nonretail area, and by putting the retail here in hopes something good will come is a good hope, but that is not necessarily guaranteeing it. i hope that you all have thought about that and we are not just seeing another papered off ground floor where there is no retail. it is a difficult part of the street. >> i thought that the owner's business was going to go into that? i thought that's what i heard. please come up. >> that would be great. perhaps i misunderstood. >> yes, commissioners. the commercial space will not be used at least at the present. it will not be used as retail.

we are a service company, and we only have a couple of staff in the office, and it is not a retail type of business. >> so it will be used by yourself and it will be occupied >> yes, it will be occupied by me and my partner. >> okay. >> presently we only have one full-time staff there. >> okay. if that is within -- that is within the plan approval. >> correct. his business would be defined as a trade shop use. it helps me to the prop x. requirements that apply to this site. >> wonderful. that is even better. perfect. i moved to approve. i'm very excited we were able to finally resolve this and i'm very glad to see the community support the project. >> thank you. second. in that condition about the garage noise that goes in there. >> correct. the commission can add a

condition. reduce the noise level. >> or make a visual. >> or make it visual. either or. >> okay. >> that is in there, right? >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioners, there was a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion... [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. commissioners, i have just been informed there is a security issue here at city hall where they are restricting people and persons from entering the building, so i was suggest maybe taking a short recess because it may be presenting -- preventing people who want to come speak to the next several items. i know staff have stepped outside, so however you want to proceed. >> i think speaker pelosi is in

the building and speaking at an event downstairs, were taking a break actually help us? >> again, it is entirely up to you. i don't know how long -- >> i think she is there for the entire -- she is the keynote speaker. >> right, but they may have restricted people from entering for a short period of time, i don't know. again, i just received word. >> i would say we power through. >> okay. very good, item 17 is 61 cambon drive. conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. i am with planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for the establishment of a

cannabis retail use in an existing retail tenant space. the project site is located within the boundaries of the neighborhood commercial shopping center zoning district, which requires a conditional use authorization. the subject property is located in a single story stripmall adjacent to the merced neighborhood on cambon drive. the subject tenant space is currently occupied by a community martial arts center. the tenants face -- space is a proximal he 1,000 square feet and only interior tenant improvements are proposed. there are no schools, youth establishments, or other cannabis retail establishments within 600 feet of the subject property. there curtly no cannabis retail establishments in this area of the city, and only a few on the west side of the city in general the nearest operating cannabis storefront is on mission street in the excelsior. the project sponsors are equity applicants with the city's office of cannabis, the sponsors have designed the space to have a lobby and security checkpoint

at the front of the space to limit the visibility of products and the potential impact to youth passing by. the project is also subject to regulations of the office of cannabis and the department of public health. included in your packet are 12 letters of support for the project and one letter of support with 107 signatures, which cite how the project will providing necessary and desirable service to residents who rely on cannabis products for medical and recreational needs in a community that is currently underserved by cannabis goods and services. also in your packet was one letter of opposition stating concerns of the impact to youth as a result of the proximity of the project to the off-campus student housing in the neighborhood. since the publication of the packet, the department has received three new letters of support, and 20 new signatures on the form letter. the department has also received 55 letters and one phone call about this issue. the majority of these letters cite opposition to the removal of the martial arts center and

are not in support of the change in tenancy. the landlord is not here today, with a project sponsors will address that tenancy. additionally, i like to clarify the preapplication meeting that was held on june 10th, 2019, the form that was included in the packet had been accidentally submitted as a blank form. fourteen people did a tendon that will be corrected in the final motion. staff recommends approval of this conditional use authorization request as noted in the executive summary. the project proposes a necessary and desirable service that meets the findings under planning code section 303 w., in that this project will aid in providing a more even geographic distribution of cannabis retail uses throughout the city, and by providing a retail establishment in the western side of the city which is currently underserved. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code and is consistent with the intent of the neighborhood commercial shopping center zoning district and this concludes my presentation. i am available to answer any questions and the sponsors have a presentation.

>> thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, planning commission. i would like to thank you for your time today. my name is charles tony the second. i'm a san francisco native, born and raised in the hunter's pointed district. i am in cutie applicant and c.e.o. of positive vibe. -- i am an equity applicant and c.e.o. of positive vibe. she loves to help people and has the spirit of giving that we all could learn and imitate. as a guy who extends that love to our family of the district -- speaking to the residents, we find out that people have to travel across cities to get medicinal cannabis. our research showed no dispensary within a 4-mile radius. it brings employment, education, assistant programs -- assistant programs and healing. i wou