ownership, pride and responsibility that goes along with what is going to be an exciting park. >> welcome to the planning commission for thursday, octobe. the commission does not tolerate any outbursts. please satellite your mobile devises and when speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. i would like to take role. we would expect commissioner richards to arrive shortly and commissioner moore to be absent. we have a propose for

continuance. item one, residential care facilities, planning care amendment is moved to novembe november 7th. the second is proposed for continuance to november 14. item 3rds,aa belcher strategy, proposed ford you continuanc fo. item 4, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to december 5th, 2019. item 5 at 16 seacliff avenue, discretionary review has been withdrawn propert.

item 18, 2019-0050cua at 2934 caesar chavas street, conditional use, i have received a request to continue this until november 21, 2019. item 20, 19-012253drp at 463 castro street, discretionary review must be reviewed due to a noticing error, proposed for continuance to october 24t october 24th and i'm pleased to inform you that item 22, 9175 drp, discretionary review has been withdrawn. i have to other items for continuance and i do know there was one gentleman who wanted to speak to caesar chavez in opposition, not in continuance. >> so if anybody wants to

comment on the items proposed for continuance, and this would be to the continuance, come on up now. >> i am leanne fetter and i'm asking if you postpone the dispensary, i would ask to comment today because we've taken off work. if we could add our comments, that would be appreciated. >> i'm here for the dispensary at 2934 and i would like to know why it would be posted and i would like to have it heard today. >> are you project sponsor? >> i am. >> thank you. any other items? public comment. >> john kevling, on behalf of 55 bellcher street. it's going to be a story of

accommodation. we continued this hearing for a month from june to july and to work further with dtna. we got that resolved. we agreed to october 3rd, to work with the adjacent neighbor. we are at the point where we've got updated floor plans, reduced roof deck and we're trying to decide between through facade designs, but we're essentially done. we'll come back with a corporate rental restriction and right now, the next available hearing is november 21st. i just ask the commission that you consider accommodating this project sponsor considering they've been through. i think more than three weeks is enough time to get this wrapped up. >> any other public comment on the continuance calendar? public comment is closed. commissioner? >> motion to continue items

entered into the record. >> seconded. >> thank you, commission. on that motion to continue items as proposed -- poweso moved and that passed 4-. >> for the community who is here for chavez, the auto was item ws continued to allow for more negotiations between the project sponsor and community. so we will take your comments into advisement and would encourage you do some work with the project sponsor so that we are ready to hear it next time. thank you. >> commissioners, that will place us under your concept calendar. all matters are considered to be routine for the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single role call. there will be no separate

discussion unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which it shall be removed and considered as a separate item. item 6, case 2019-000362cua 150a, conditional use authorization 7, case 201 201-005402, beal street, case 2018-39163 855 garry street, item 9, 00416cua through 1062 sanchez street, 2019-00521c at 298 munich street, i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, do any members of the public wish to comment on the consent calendar?

any commissioners want to take items off of consent? commissioner? >> motion to approve 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. >> thank you. on that motion to approve items under your consent calendar --it passes unanimously. >> september 12, 2019. do any members of the public wish to provide comment on the draft minutes? with that, public comment is closed. commissioner? >> motion to approve minutes for

september 12, 2019. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then, to adopt the minutes for september 12 and september 19, commissioner?that mission passes. comments and questions on item 12? >> i'm sorry, sir, did you want to provide public comment on something? >> i just had a quick announcement, folks. as many of you know who follow us on tv, in the consequence au. we solicited comments about the qualifications for our next director of planning who will

fill some very, very large shoes and i'm happy to report that we were able to incorporate most everyone's comments and the job description is listed as of today on the city's dhr website. so please help us circulate far and wide. we will be following our process and hopefully can have a smooth transition. thank you. i just wanted to say, commissioner fung, specifically, for having help drafted the job description. thank you. >> we can move on to item 13, director's announcements? >> no new announcements today, except to say that i do hope, also hope, there's a smooth transition in the coming months

and i'll do my best to make that happen. >> review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. >> aaron star, manager of legislative affairs . we heard the landmark designation for 2301 bush street and we voted to recommend approval. fundamentadesigned in the meditn revival style, this is significant from the association with the social, cultural and educational enrichment of japanese enrichments in san francisco. it was the home of the cultural school of kin ma and one of four who was funded by the japan town. the building is associated with the incarceration of japanese dis-september during world war ii following president roosevelt's order, it was used

as a processing center where citizens and noncitizens of japanese ancestry would report and relocated to concentration camps across the united states. it's significant for the association with community activist among african-americans as the home of the booker t. washington center from 1942 to 1952. during the hearing, three speakers spoke in favor and supervisor peskin he be added as cosponsor. the community voted unanimously to recommend the designation to the full board. at the rule's committee this week, the committee reviewed supervisor hainey's ordinance to create the committee. commissioners, you heard this on september 19th and voted to recommend approval with modifications to reduce the residency requirement for the stoma stablization cia and proposed am amendments. supervisor there are two speaker

of the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation. at the full board, the board voted mandelman's position with a use of residential care facility to another uses this would last for 18 months or until permanent controls are off adopted. this was the item heard at last week's land use committee which obtained a recommendation of approval. that concludes my report. >> thank you, mr. star. >> there's no report from the board of off peels appeals. the preservation board did meet to hold a meeting on the advice from the city attorney's office. in addition, what might be of interest is that they considered supporting nominations to the national register of historic places for the grand orient

philippino hotel and japanese ywca, the women's building and adopted resolutions in support of both of those buildings. >> great! thank you. >> did you have something? >> i had not been aware of that building in japan town that was discussed yesterday. i had no idea it was designed by julia morgan. it was designed by the most famous woman architect in the state, if not the country of that era, so that was great. >> very cool. thank you. so we will now move on to public comment? >> general public comment. at this time, members may address the commission that are within the subject jurisdiction except agenda items. with respect to the agenda, that will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address up to three minutes. i have two speaker cards.

>> i have georgia shutus and anyone ha wishe who wishes to pe general public comment may do so right now. >> hi. good afternoon. on january 27th, 2015, i wrote an e-mail mainly to mr. sanchez but cced a bunch of people projects have extensive remodeling, like alteration and facade from scrutiny of the staff at the untake and so should a simultaneously expansion in the front rear side, horizonally and vertically of any project to attract greater scrutiny.

square footage, regardless of the fact maybe within the code attract greater scrutiny which there should be an alert put on the pre-mandatory notice and simple english for all neighbors who may be a novice to the planning process i is to have tt actively encourage questions or call the planner or building department. when a project sponsor makes an application, aren't they affirming that what they're submitting on the plans and in the description of the permit application is true? don't they sign a sheet attesting to that? shouldn't this be more than just a piece of paper someone signs? i went on to say about the crisis of affordability and it seemed like a modest problem and it may be lost as relatively affordable housing but there's existing housing in the portola

and bayview and sunset and richmond that needs attention from this insidious remodeling. that was 2015. since then, i made a list which i've given you and you will give it to you in a minute of the buildings and the number of buildings that have expanded exponentially, so enough so that it's like $150 million worth of value from the time they bought the property to the time it was resold. that's the total value, average $3.5 million in increase and sales price. a year ago, i ask that you please consider adjusting the demo caps which hasn't happened and i have sheets that show how you can adjust them because the number has been adjusted for the rh1 and numerical criteria and i've given you that sheet. the new official sheet is out,

even though it happened in july from the za, where it's 2.2. so anything below 2.2 is gone. and here is my demo that has been of adjusted four times. there's one from you and now i'll stop talking. thank you very much. >> thank you, miss shudish. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm from the neighborhood consortium manager. what i wanted to do today, you may have read the litigation between our concertu consortiume city regarding the central soma plan. what i wanted to today today was to give to the secretary for the

public record of this commission a full copy of the executed settlement agreement, first with the city, which director ram executed and the that collateral agreements and the straa investment that was a part of the entire package. it's important, we think, for these to be on the public record so that all of their contents are available to anyone and none of our agreements are confidential. unfortunately the other settlement agreements are confidential and weda know what they say. also in the package is the copy of the city's, attorney's title and summary for the proposition, the ballot measure addressing prop m that we will submit for voters' action next march. our signature collections are on

the street today. this is the first day of signature collection and i wanted to be sure that you had the full text and the appropriate documents in the public record, as well. you may, perhaps, want to have the staff update on these matters since they are consequential with regard to the central soma plan, in particular, and city-wood in c n general. what remains are two pieces of trading legislation. you just heard an update. you have the community advisory committee that has cleared committee and will be finalized this month. what is still pending and pending technical work is the good job's program. when you yourselves were

discussing this, there was a programme and never finalized and still hasn't been finalized. this is complicated technically and supervisor hainey's office is work on that with community members. if you do have this on the calendar, to get into some depth with the staff and so on. you might afford us two or three minutes to provide us with the tale as the organiz originator e documents. >> i had another speaker card from the valley association. come on up. >> i'm bill hoover with the merchant's association, a board member. and i'm here today merely to bring awareness to the commission that the valley commercial district is depressed.

we're actually in crisis. what i would like to introduce is, i'd like to review and change the commercial district zoning and certain items. again, what i would like to ask is your assistance on how to get the ball rolling on reviewing these items that have a negative impact. of course, the purpose is to revitalize the valley. and so, i ask your assistance on how to continue. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'm jeremy paul. i'm pleased i was able to withdraw discretionary review for 3610 washington street, but the case is about 317, not really about this particular project and sort of an odd nexus of ideas we've been hearing about these de demolitions and radiremodels and where that line falls and i would encourage this commission to study section 317, try to address some o of the issues and close the loop because the problems with this section are legend. thank you. >> thank you, are paul. mr. paul. any other general public comment? public comment is now closed. commissioner fung?

>> commissioner who talked about the valley neighborhood commercial, you were genetic and general in your discussion. give me some examples of what changes you're talking about. >> there are restrictions on the number of restaurants titled for the neighbor. actually, i'd like to find out where i can get ahold of all of the restrictions and conditions of that neighborhood? where would i go? to. >> it would be in our planningc,

i would encourage you to work with your supervisor. >> ok. >> to start the process because obviously, the valley merchant's associationlies iassociation lin ecosystem with neighbors. scott process to start bringing everyone together. >> my supervisor in district 8. >> super mayes. >> and thank you very much for your work. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to your regular calendar. for the benefit of the public, if you're here for 18, caesar chavez, that was continued to november 21 and castro street to october 24.

case 2415, 4 this is an informational presentation. >> thank you and good afternoon. i'm with the department staff. so as the commission secretary noted, this is an informational hearing that satisfies a conditional of approval. this commission approved this project in september 13th of this last year and added this condition. it relates to the exterior facade and the condition number 12 amount of this motion, number 20281 state as follows. prior to ear issuance of the sie project, they shall resign the lower levels of the southeast corner of the project to eliminate the existing 450 farrell street c facade and replace it with a design that maintains the devices to the features of the surrounding district.

, including the storefront height, the facade composition, organization of building into vertical masses, punched window openings and material uses and sharing the compatibility with the tenderloin district i in terms f size and scale. the project sponsor is ready today to share with you the revised design. as i noted, this does satisfy this condition of approval and i'm available for questions.

>> this extends the building to shannon. there's three more things to

mention about building design. one is we extended the precast masonry panel, the heavy precast masonry to the street instead of having the plaster building in its place. the second thing we did in terms of building design was to create a heavier panel to help define the two-story element along with sidewalk in keeping with other buildings on that block in the area and we broke up the storefront which you see more typically of the neighborhood to maintain that character. we worked back and forth with planning and a year later we're back with the resign developments. i'm here for any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment on

this item? public comment is closed. commissioner fung? >> this question may be either -- either by staff or by the project sponsor. and i wasn't hear for the previous entitlement, but when i read this condition, two things stad out, when you talk about tripartide building order, this building doesn't have one. when you talk about punched buildings, this does not have punched window openings. so i hope you have a discussion of where this came from. if you. >> i'm the department staff and

this condition arose from the initial design, maining * mainta portion of the existing building. the ultimate goal was to not include the existing facade into the final design. the project sponsor could actually bring the design. one moment and ail hav and i'll. >> the commission. >> oh, the commissioner didn't like it, i see. >> if we could have the overhead, please. [ laughter ] >> so this is the zane tha desin reviewed in september and you can see that some of the precast masonry structure is in this original design. if we could see the revised, please, thank you.

the rendering is eluding to the punch windows in this district. the base middle top, we believe, are included in this tripartide design. there is a storefront is distinct and the precast is extended to provide an additional definition such -- not replicating but references the cornices in this district. >> it would help to put up the elevation if you have that handy. >> some of us who are older have a different definition for tripartide. [ laughter ]

the top is the wooder coursing, if you will of the tower. so i think our take was that it was kind of a pretty good kind of contemporary take on that three-part arrangement and that's why it ended up this way. if i may, while i have the floor, this project went through kind of a weird kind of course and i will take some of the responsibility for wanting to initially save a portion of the

existing building. obviously that didn't play out so well with members of the community and members of the commission. so i want to thank the members for working with us dill gentl y to bring the project to this point. so thank you to all. >> thank you. >> if there's nothing further, we can move to item 16, case 2019-00575 imp at 555 post street. this is an abbreviated master plan. >> i'm sorry, i came late. did 16 seacliff happen? >> it was withdrawn. >> good afternoon, commissioners, this is an informational item for a master plan for make school located at

555 post street tha. this is with dominican university providing full-time, two-year accelerated bachelor of applied computer science program and releases the lower stories for its classes and administration. the school does not own any property in the city and no provide city housing. it has enrolled 180 students and employs 33 full-time staff including three full-time instructors. there was one public requirement about whether the institution was for or not for profit. this item is an informational item. this concludes my press. representatives of the school are here to provide additional information regarding the institution. >> thank you.

>> we're scooted to b excited td we partner with the dominican association of schools and colleges. we look forward to engaging with the community and we thank you for your time and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> do we have any public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. commissioner? >> question for staff. the ipm, does it require future

growth trends? >> yes. >> in my reports, they were looking forward to expanding. >> and there's a time frame, isn't it, like five years or something in the imp reimbursements? >> correct, a reimbursemen requd provide an update every two years. >> so there's no growth plan? commissioner fung, we have no plans for expansion of the physical plant at this time. we envision ourselves improving the existing facilities that we are in at 555 post street and so no plans for expansion of physical plans. >> ok.

>> two people submitted speaker cards and it was off proved undeapprovedunder the consent cd that hearing has been held. item 17a and b for 2014.0334 search hd, e and x, shadow findings and large project authorization. >> good afternoon, commission. i'm the planning staff. the request is for a large project authorization and shadow authorization to construct two spaws 65-foot tall mixed residential buildings on a three-lot, spanning the block between seventh and lengton streets located in the mixed use

general district in the height and bulk district. the project proposed is the demolition of a single-story warehouse and construction of two seven story building. there is a dwelling of which 17 would be on-site affordable units. approximately 1,080 square foot ground floor commercial space is provided for fronting on seventh street and the project would not have any accessory parking but would provide the class one bicycle parking spaces. overall, the project massing provides the street wall along seventh and lankton to match existing heights and provides in that great courtyard between the two buildings.

the ground floors provide pedestrian oriented commercial space on seventh street, stoops and residential lobbies. the proposed project would result in a new shadow on howard and park increasing the shadow load between current levels in an increase to 48.94% of the total annual available sunloot. sunlight. there must be music motions, rer yard, section 134, open space and dwelling unit exposure, section 140. additionally, the commission with the recommendation from the recreation and park's commission must make a determination that the shadow impact on the minipark would not be significant or adverse pursuant to planning code 295.

costaff believes the requests fr modification are warranted due to the overall quality of the site design which creates the active frontages. on august 15, it was presented at the park's commission and it passed resolution by the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the use of howard lankton minipark. there's a housing and scale compatible with the mixed use neighborhood. this exhibits overall quality design compatible with the contact on both frontages and meets all code requirements, noting the exceptions with the large project authorization.

today, the department has not received letters in support or opposition to the project. this concludes staff report and i'm available for questions. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm on behalf of the project sponsor. i just want to provide a few more details about the project. as miss samonski said, this has two buildings straighte separata 45-foot courtyard and there are few that exists and a couple of other projects contributing to this commission has approved. it activates langton street important to the residents on the other side of the street. the units are smaller, but that means they'll be offered at comparatively lower rents and available to a larger range of people. they're doing on-site affordable

*siteaffordability. there's bike parks for everybody. the project has been pending since october 2015 and we spent a long time with the staff and mmaterials. a few comments about the shadow on the community garden. just for background, the garden is not generally open to the public and there are public events but people who have keys and have, lake like, a plot are allowed access. during the winter months, shadow is an entry gate. the average amount of shadow is 21 minutes a day. the maximum day for 45 minutes with no afternoon or evening shadow. in fact be, the sad doe is gonee

by 8:15 a.m. an alternative project would eliminate 17 units including three bmr units and the project was unanimously arrived by rec and park. one final bit, as of a few hours ago earlier this morning, we happy to announce the project has the support of the leather and lgbtq cultural district. thank you and we're available for questions. >> thank you. do we have any public comment on this item?

public comment is closed. >> commission fung. >> question for project sponsor. when you say alternative project, is that one that does not require a rear-yard exception? >> that doesn't cast shadow on the park. >> what would it be like without a rear-yard exception? >> so the rear-yarding acception, the idea there is that it matches the one on seventh street. >> just give me what the changes would be if this project

conformed to the -- excuse me, did not have a rear-yarding acception, what happens to it. >> they would have less exposure. >> how many units? >> i cannot say. we obviously did not sketch out that alternative, but as far as what the massing reform of the building would be, it would many that the rear yard is located on lankton street. >> ok. >> just clarifying with the architect, eight units per level that would be lost. >> approximately 50 units? >> that's correct. >> last question for staff.

have there been in recent times other sro projects? >> yes, yes, we have had sro projects in this and others. >> in the last year or two? >> yes. >> remember, i just came on in may. [ laughter ] >> i was thinking back, thinking through the projects. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> this project is classified as sro and market rate sro. paying the square footage what the market will bear. i think the project design is great rather than having the rear yard facing lankton street. i think you did a great job with staff on this project and these are the uniting units we need it neighborhood. and i move to approve it with

the condition that the ao5 panel, the materials are what you actually use. >> second. >> on page a05. >> did you have additional comment. >> i would support the rec and park decision. >> thank you. >> very good, then, there's a motion seconded to approve this with conditions. it requires the material palet on that motion. (role call). >> so moved, commissioners and passes unanimously 5-0 and for clarity, you did adopt shadow findings. item 18 is continued to novembee 2019-14433 49dubose avenue,

conditional use authorization. good afternoon. >> this is to permit the establishment of 21, 800 square feet zoning district, includes industrial agriculture, light manufacturing with specifically without the volatile use and service. in existing two-story over basement warehouse space. as you can see by your staff report, we addressed issues regarding the conversion of the pdr space. the tenant history, as well as the necessary cannabis use buffers. at this time, i'll close my portion of the presentation and invite the project sponsor up. >> thank you.

>> i want to tell you how grateful i am to be here today. i got into the cannabis business in 2004 and started two bridges, nonprofit care collective in 2012. we're a small san francisco-born boutique, licensed, cultivated in high-end flower-only at this point. we distribute to four san francisco dispensaries including grass roots, barbery coast and urban farm. i'm a true believer and legal cannabis industry and in it due to my beliefs. we moved to our current location in 2017. my friended and fellow supporters at grass roots were running previously and i took

over as they moved to a bigger facility in oakland. we've been operating under the san francisco's amnesty programme where we navigated through the permitting process. (please stand by by (

>> they are the true farm to shelve provider. the product has to travel no more than a mile and a half to get to their final destinations. thank you for your time and considerations. >> thank you so much. we may have questions after public comment. thank you. do we have any public comment on this item? you may do so now. >> hello. i have been a resident before i

moved for college. i just heard this project and i am a great supporter of it. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner fung? >> i have questions for staff. these operations are energy intensive. is that going to be a building permit requirement or is there anything that we would add to the planning? >> we have heard that comment so we consulted with the office of cannabis. recently, they sit and two actions. they adopted a rule that these cultivation sites will have to procure their energy from renewable sources using the san

francisco utilities, clean power s.f., or procuring directly from the sfpuc and the hetch hetchy power supply. the business is not currently mandated to do that because we don't have a permanent license, but prior to getting a permanent license, they will be mandated to do that. we are also having them consult with the s.f. environment to identify ways they can do more efficient work. but it has been incorporated. >> that office -- that requirement will come from the office of cannabis? >> yes. >> okay. commissioner koppel? >> you took the words out of my mouth, commissioner fung. seeing as the answer -- the question was answered, i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded. on that motion to approve with conditions... [roll call]

so moved that motion passes unanimously 5-0. i took 20 under your discretionary review calendar was continued. item 22 was withdrawn leaving us with item 21. >> good afternoon, commissioners david winslow, staff architect. never thought i would see with this early. the agent before you as a public initiated requests for discretionary review of building permit application 20190513 to construct property line windows and interior property line to a previously permitted construction of a three-story, one family dwelling. the requester, you jason neighbor to the northwest of the proposed project, is concerned with the size and the materials, and that the property line

windows could create privacy impacts. his suggested alternative is to eliminate or reduce the proposed windows. to date, the department has received no letters in opposition or support except for one that arrived today expressing concern about the property line windows from the neighbor. in light of this, the residential design advisory team has rereviewed this and looked at property line windows that project over the roof of the adjacent neighbor and we deemed that those do not create any privacy impacts or diminish privacy to the property. therefore, staff recommends not taking the d.r. as this does not pose an exceptional or extraordinary condition to an otherwise code compliant project this concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the d.r. requester.

>> hi, before i get started, i would like to make a correction, sorry. between yesterday and today, there has been at least three or four e-mails sent by the neighborhood in opposition of this proposed change. i will start. i live at 238 attorney street. the house adjacent to the property in question. i have been a resident of san francisco for 25 years, and 20 years at this address. the quiet neighborhood lived in harmony until may 17th, 2014 when a fire consumed one of the most unique properties in san francisco.

and honest to god farmhouse with inexpensive front yard. it even had a chicken weathervane. people in the neighborhood adored this house. the whole street had a lot of character until it turned into ashes. fast-forward a year when the developer proposed a development that turns a 1200 square foot home to an almost 7,000 square foot home. that is like a phoenix reincarnating into godzilla. with my five minutes, i would like the commission to not only consider whether this proposal is compliant, but take into account the developer's history of deception towards the neighbors and the true profiteering motives. i did not object to this project initially because i'm not one of those people. i support densification of san francisco to maintain some sense of affordability in this beautiful city.

for full disclosure, the construction company and i entered into an agreement in 2016 where for my compliance for the development, they will construct my remodel for favorable place of $300 a square foot. this remodel would mitigate most of the negative effects of the development of the neighboring house. as you can see in the graphics, there is a huge difference via the solar study and the before and after shadowing effects on my property on the left. it was away for both of us to works and by optically for mutual benefit, not antagonistically, which is how i like to operate. because of this contract, i did not object to the machinations until now. this is the contract that we had signed. i don't want to be here for five hours, i want to be outside where it is beautiful, and said, i'm here because now that there project is about 90% complete,

they have verbally expressed breaching the contract that we signed. instead, proposing to value engineer a build for my remodel at $1,200 a square foot. that is four times the price that we had signed. now that he has forfeited my trust, my neva tea has been violated and i have learned that he and his development are solely marching towards one thing, profit. profit without regard to the neighborhood. pop profit to the forced expense of the neighborhood. giving of sunlight and giving a privacy. it will stop at nothing to squeeze this goose until it is dry. i am not here today just because i have been deceived but i want to do what is right to advocate for the what remains of neighborhood privacy for myself and my neighbors. let me paint a picture of the history of history garden for the neighborhood. speaking for my property personally, the following itemized the path of destruction i have experienced. broken window screens, trampled