i regularly attend student performances on the campus. i support project and i hope you support it too. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is emily and my daughter who is 14-years-old and a freshman at mission high school, is a trumpet player. since 2018, she's been a part of the cmc mission district youth music program. it's a tuition free program that provides her and middle and high school students with a education in latin music including weekly private lessons, saturday anden sum bell class and performing in the community. the highlight of her first year -- the highlight of her first year was participating in the animal carnival parade where cmc was part of an award winning contingent with seniors from

ruth table and beth knee center and from trash mash up the and marshal high school marching band. cmc is a san francisco institution serving as a resource for free and affordable music education and appreciate ace in the heart of the district mission district. approving the campus expansion project will help cmc serve future generations of san franciscans for many more years to come. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is see could i a

>> i believe in that magic and i'm glad i did. >> thank you so much for your comments. >> next speaker, please. >> that's it. any other public comment on this item? with that public comment is closed. ms. steinberg, i would like to ask about the first public comments about the eviction that took place, if you could, take us through and there's some legal issues for us and so if you could explain to us what happened? >> yes, of course. and also i think if it's appropriate i'd like to write a number of our project committees who work on this assessment who was part of the purchase of the

owner and paul can share in steps we took to ensure that we were in community and that discussion. >> please. >> >> we heard that the property was coming up for sale and i think 2011 and the owner was planning to buy it. we knew her peripherally and began a conversation we realized she was going to ellis act the building. that wasn't what we had in mind. she put it on the market and she didn't make it easy to purchase. we competed against other buyers and the other buyers would not

be operating it as the affordable renting house in the past. it was us buying it for our expansion in the community or going probably to a single family that would pay a lot of money and convert into a home opioid building there. we were dis pushed about the ellis act eviction and the next building over as you might sometimes the san francisco tenants union so we also knew ted. ted and some of you may know and we went and talked to ted and said, here is the situation. what is our respons responsibil? in the end he blessed the purchase. he said, i'm not going to come out and support your purchase but i'm not going to oppose it because you didn't have anything to do with the emissions and we

encourage you to buy the building. >> what year was the purchase? >> it was 2012. so it's been eight years. >> since years since we bought it. >> we closed in the fall of 2012? >> thank you. >> ok. >> commissioners. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> is there a second. >> commissioner, thank you. >> commissioners, there's a motion that has been second to approve this matter with conditions, commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> and president melgar. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes 4-0. commissioners, that will place

us back on item -- we have additional business to attend to. >> thank you. that will brings us back to item 119. we will probably need commissioner richards if he is here. otherwise we won't have a quorum. >> i'm not leaving. >> we need commissioner richards. for 461 29th street, please note on august 29th, 2019 after hearing in closing public this was continued to november 7th, 2019 with direction from the commission about a 6-0. commissioner johnson, you were absent. on november 7th, without hearing it was continued to today's date. commissioner johnson, you were absent and commissioner diamond you were not yet seated as a commissioner. in order to participate, you would have had to reviewed the previous hearing and materials

and if you can acknowledge as much today you can participate. >> i have reviewed the material. >> i have not given i was appointed this week, i have not. >> we will need to recuse you from this matter but it would be better if commissioner richards were here. >> so we would need -- we have quorum to be and to hear the items so i just texted commissioner richards -- i don't know where he is. should we go onto the next item. >> we'll be forced to take the next item. >> i'm so zar, we have to take the next item and come back to this. >> very good, commissioners, we're on item 20 for 2019-004849cua2406 bush street conditional use authorization.

>> good evening. i'm going to be very brief given the lateness of the hour and you have many more items on the agenda to cover tonight. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to legalize the merger of two dwelling units into one dwelling unit within the rh3 zoning district. the authorized use of the building is two-family per the report of residential building record. the previous configuration of the building consisted of two equally sized slats, the two units have been merged without permit into one 2200 square foot single family home. no exterior modifications are proposed. this is a long standing code enforcement case that was originally filed with both the department of building inspections and planning.

a case history is included as exhibit e in your packet. the violation also included window replacement and construction of two decks at the back of the building which will be under separate permits at the outcome of today's hearing. if approved, the that resulted in the merger of two dwelling units and interior partition walls and an interior front entry door which separated the former unit were removed. the kitchen in the second unit on the top floor, was also removed and converted into a master bedroom. the cost estimate to restore the second unit is included in your packets as exhibit f. per the applicant, the estimate to restore the second unit is estimated between 10 to $15,000. as reported by the rent board,

an owner move in eviction occurred before the dwelling units were merged. the building is currently owner occupied. the department recommendation is that you disapprove the dwelling unit merger as noted in the executive summary, the project would sanction work without city permit removing two naturally affordable flats and the housing stock. and would legalize a single family home in a three-family zoning district. this concludes my presentation. >> is there a project sponsor? come on up. >> commissioner, thank you for your time. i regular i'll be brief because it's late in the hour. i purchased in july of 2001. and i have lived there up until

about nine months ago and raised my two daughters in san francisco. when i purchased the home, there was a tenant there, kathleen and john o'shea and we were very transparent with them and they were very co-operative with us. we moved them to the vacant unit upstairs and we moved in our selves downstairs and began renovations to the home with permits. this is when you could go in and pull an over the counter permit for such work. all the permits i pulled from 2002 to 2005 were over the counter permits. my error at the time was and

final but it still remains a non compliant building and i sold the building to someone who is use particular as a single family home and living in it and they are fully aware of the issues. but i'm cooperating with them as the private sponsor and the applicant for this work. there's no work necessary to do what we're asking and make a single family home and if you were familiar with the area there are three italian victoria yans in a row one is 2406 bush street and the other two are single-family homes occupied by long-time homeowners as single family. one of them at 2426 commissioned a study that i submit as part of my application from bloom feld

historic architect that has the actual history from 1882 and these were built to the building is 137-years-old and 80% of its life it's been a single family home and in 1976, it was converted or legalized to two families. when i took ownership of it, the second floor was barely habitable and i'm a general contractor and i spent years on it restoring it back to a beautiful victoria as it was intended and covered up with stucco and what was the second unit was a took cop and undercounter size refrigerator. i don't know if anyone was living up there in rough shape. to restore it back is only 10 to $15,000 because it would be putting in a divider and two very narrow doors and this is

not in the spirit of san francisco housing and it may not be necessary i think it's desirable and compatible although there are other buildings around that for sure the three buildings were built as single family and are all being occupied as single family. thank you for your consideration and your time. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> do we have any public comment on this item? >> with that public comment is now closed. commissioner richards. >> a couple of questions. so when the units were merged was it legal then? >> i would actually allow staff to answer that question. >> >> we'll ask you to come up again. >> mrs. oakland. >> no, the merger was not done

with permits. >> it needed a permit? >> correct. today it would require that. >> the penalty due in the packet is $319,750 from april 21, 2012 to october 2015. plus additional penalty until corrective action taken. we're up to half a million dollars? >> that was reduced and the total fees paid to date have been about $24,000. >> do you know why it was reduced? >> i don't have the exact information why. i am here representing code compliance cases but i'm not part of the deem. >> we have a comment when someone was talking about fees -- penalties and they were

cheaper of talking tickets and this is a cow, all this happens and when they got done they were reduced 90 some percent and it's eye-opening. i can understand the project sponsors desire to live in a single family house. i thought you were doing the right thing. you didn't get a permit and we're in 2019 and i think things are different than they were when you did this and there's an affordable crisis and you took a naturally somewhat naturally affordable unit off the market so i wouldn't be inclined to support this. >> i wouldn't support it city. i'm the time that i've done to the commission we have not approved any unit merger let alone legalized illegal once so i am not not, inclined to take

it's not consistent with a policy that this commission has followed since i've been here but can you please clarify for me what the staff is recommending, again, i'm sorry, it's late and i'm tired. >> say it again. >> there were only minor changes made. the plans, if you look at your online park et are more clear than those represented in the printed packet and unfortunately there was a printing error. on the ground floor there was an interior entry door that was removed. that can be easily put back in place. on the top floor it was not in

good shape and the total estimate to do the work to restore the unit would be between 10 to 15,000 per their estimate. that is what we would be approving. we would ask the applicant to have a permit to that effect. >> yes. did you want to say something? the motion in your packet is for disapproval? >> yes. >> i got that. >> ok. >> commissioner diamond. >> so it was built as a single family house and then legally converted to a two-unit residence and illegally converted back to a single-family house? >> that's correct. per the throw hour report there are permits dating from the 1970s that show two units. it's very common for single-family homes to have been

converted. yet there is a penalty or not a penalty? >> a penalty has been paid and i believe they are up-to-date on their penalties but if they could not respond in timely manner to tonight's decision, they would insure -- >> what was the amount of the penalty? >> the penalties for code enforcement are standard $250 per day. >> >> it's in rh3. >> correct. > >> thro three family zone. >> anybody want to make a motion? >> move to disapprove. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's a motion and seconds to disapprove the requested authorization on that motion. diamond. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> richards. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> president melgar.

>> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes 5-0. now, we will go back to item 19 for case 20-2008 461 29th street. i will repeat that on august 29th, 2019 after hearing closing public comment you continued this matter to november 7th with direction by the commission of a vote to 6-0. commissioner johnson you were absent and commissioner diamond you were not seated yet on november 7th. you continued the matter to today's date by a vote of 5-1. you need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> i have. >> thank you. >> and i have not because i was just seated this week. >> very good. so, we would need to recuse commissioner diamond. move to recuse commissioner diamond. >> second. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner diamond. commissioner diamond. >> aye.

>> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> press melgar. >> aye. >> so moved that motion passes 5-0. so commissioner diamond, you will need to actually leave the chambers. [laughter] whose phone is ringing and dinging, can you turn it off, please? >> this is the revised motion. good evening, commissioners, brigitte hix planning department staff, project before you is a conditional use authorization for the demolition of the an existing 1,284 single family home and a residential building with two dwelling units and one accessory dwelling unit in the rh2 zoning district.

and this requires a conditional use to demolish the existing residential unit. it was heard on the 29th at the hearing, neighbors and commissioners voiced concerns about the emassing, unit size and design were out of context for the neighborhood. the commission voted to continue the item to the seventh. the revisions were not complete by that date which is why we were continued to today's date. sponsors held a meeting to receive comments from the neighbors and 50 neighbors attended that meeting. since the last hearing the following changes have been made. a third unit has been added to the proposal as an a.d.u. and the garage faces an increase with one vehicle parking space and one bicycle parking space for each of the three units. the facade has been redesigned to more closely align with vertical patterns found throughout the neighborhood. the facade materials have been changed to stucco, painted wood and the stone base. the height of the building has been decreased by six inches and the fourth floor has been

reduced to be setback 15 feet from the front facade and extend no further than the massing to the neighbor to the west at 467 29th in the year. the roof deck has been eliminated and the light wells increases to match the neighboring light. the department has received a letter questioning the integrity of the historic resource determination. based on the public feedback regarding analysis to the subject property alterations, staff has reviewed and added further analysis to the categorical exemption and historic resource evaluation response which follows -- based on addition alanal sis of the building's development and alteration history it does not appear the alterations completed circa 1930s and are significant in their own right. these alterations do not appear to be completed by a master architect and do not possess high artistic value and the building would be considered an individually eligibility

historic resource. the existing structure is still determined to be not a historic resource and a new categorical exemption was issued on novembe. staff recommend approve of this condition use. as noted. the project is involved the demolition of a residential structure the replacement building will provide three family-size units and structure has been determined to not be a historic resource under ceqa and it meets all applicable requirements and is consistent with the intent of the zoning and this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. >> is this the second hearing up three minutes and any public comment will have one. >> ok, thank you. good evening, commissioners. very briefly, top tunney and the project sponsor asked me to help with the project following the last hearing.

the last substantive hearing knowing significant changes needed to be made. and we've achieved that we believe. there was some difficulty in that there were conflicting interests and some people wanted three units and some people wanted two, some didn't like the fourth floor and some were ok with it. in the end, we just followed staff direction. as much as we could zoo and i think completely. there's three units. the fourth floor has been reduced by a third. and flor area and as stated removed the roof deck, expanded the light wells and i would turn to our architect who can go through the details but we're available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> are we ready?

>> we are. >> all right. my name is early wise. brigitte did a great job there. there was a couple of things that i wanted to bring up she missed. we're not going to stuck o no one wanted stucco so we're doing the lap siding on the front as requested by the neighbors. there was two individuals that reached out. light wells, we did increase the light well. she was worried we were going to be a story and and a half. we put a fence on the first floor, normally we don't put that down but, the unit is actually half a floor up and our entry will be lower. >> it might work better. >> sorry about that. a couple of other things that we

did and were not brought up is we removed the top there were by a third. we brought it all the way back. we increased the light wells. we took a big chunk out of the corner over the stairs. r.d.t. was very specific in how they wanted to put a corner from the front. anyway, if you have questions, i would be happy to answer them but we're trying. thank you. >> thank you so much. we will now take public comment on this item. because this is a second time you only get a minute. so, please lineup on my left and we do have one speaker card, andrew lavigne. come on up. did you submit -- did you take it through jonah.

you can do an organized opposition. you are not all speaking, right. it's just you? >> we have two. >> come on up. >> wait. wait, wait. you have two people? you need three. >> well, evan had to leave and one person created a -- >> i can be the third person. >> great. >> let's do it. >> they get 10 minutes. >> can do you it in five minutes? >> i'll talk fast. >> and let's go through it. i know it's late. >> it is for us. >> i've been here all day too. >> i am andy lavigne. architect. i live on 29th street, 447, three doors down from the subject property. we represent the neighborhood. i have support from 51 people who signed a petition. the three items that we want to

talk about is one is it's on the petition people signed is they don't want a four-storey building. it's out of context with the building, we want three-storeys. the second item was it was too bulky. unaffordable by design. the project sponsor is doing a huge building over built but he is also not taking into consideration the neighbor's light wells, and there's a lot of ways to make it easier. the third item is the facade treatment is out of scale with the context on the block. what i'd like to start with -- and from the hearing on august 29th, just there was a -- let me go through this quickly. commissioner asked for the architect to revise the drawings and they asked them to be in more context with the neighborhood and to take input from the neighbors. i want to be clear, the project sponsor did not have a meeting with the neighbors. we scheduled that meeting, the

project architect did come without any drawings and it was frustrating. we wanted to have some response and let's see -- we'd like to start with a 3-d model we created. we asked for a shadow studies. can we have some help. >> just put it in the computer. it's your own computer. you can put it on the overhead. >> you have to call i.t. up and hook it up. just lay it on the thing. >> sf gov, would you go to the overhead, please. >> great. >> the three model shows the -- that is the existing building in

the center. and the shadows that it's creating. is it going? >> yes. >> i don't see the shadows moving. so, this has to do with the impact on the street, the neighbors and the light well. flip to the next image which we did, we remodeled the proposed building which is the, did three go. go ahead. that's it. so there's a four-storey with a deck front and back but the impact on the street is considerable. can you slide it a little bit there. and, particularly concerned with the impact to the shading of the four-storey building on the neighbor's light wells. we created this spread sheet.

>> it's com paying the proposed building that was submitted on august 29th, the revisions you see that the project sponsor has created today and we have an alternate proposal that has three units. they've taken a 40-foot high building and reduced it by -- reduced it by six inches to a 3. it's an egregious minimizization. i'm going to push this up. the regional proposal had eight bedrooms, they reduced it to seven but increased the bathroom count. our proposal has nine bedrooms so it's a more affordable for more families.

i'd like to just show some quick images. >> i just have my phone. let's see here. >> we can't see it. >> you can't really see the red very well. basically, if you can see their entry is now their first garage level. >> you have 30 more seconds. >> the garage level goes up halfway through my window i live in the right side. i'm a renter. long-term rent control. so, that means they have the

light well filled in on the first floor so that whole area will be looking out of our interior windows on a wall and then it goes up four-storeys. i made lots of drawings but you can't see right now. i made lots of drawings that you can't see. basically, our light well, as you saw in the stad ow shadow sl be completely covered and we won't get light in two interior rooms and the rental unit above us will get no light. i have lots of poets and drawings. it would be very easy for them to mass against the wall that's blank on the other side. >> that's your time. >> thank you. >> can i show these. >> i think we've exhausted the time. thank you so much. any other public comment on this item? come on up. >> please lineup on the left. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners.

my name is rick hills. almost like your former commissioner. we're both former planning commissioners. i served on this board from 199 1997to 1999 under the great wile brown and i add measur admire y. i am -- i know the project response o he is one of the best buildings in the city. he does terrific work. he lives in the neighborhood. and he has gone through the most important exercise of working with the neighbors to come back with a more user-friendly building. i totally support it. i think however valid the opponents believe in their points of view, i see it as a case of death by knit picking that only drags things out longer and it's more expensive and only aggravates the problem with a lack of housing in the city so i recommend approval of the project as planned. >> thank you, mr. hill.

>> next speaker, please. >> my name is mark norton and i didn't get to speak at the last hearing because i had to go to work. i lived directly across the street. practically. i've been there for 35 years. this fourth floor they showed you the floor floor is invisible in the rendering. it will not be invisible from my house. either my living room or study. many i'm the person that looks at this more than anybody on the planet because where i am. i support the idea of having three units. it's a good idea. i don't think having an unaffordable by design one at the top is a good idea. my minute suppose already. this is a letter about the h.r.e. they didn't do when they created this new ceqa exemption. i know you didn't get paper before but there you have it in paper.

this should be continued in the gentleman is willing to sit down and negotiate with the neighbors. i asked to sit down with them and talk the last couple of days and he ignored that request. >> thank you, very much. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is alexander mulder and i work in the neighborhood. i came to the first meeting here. i also attended the neighborhood meeting and now i'm speaking. i spoke the first time as well. i followed this project. i've watched the developer work with the neighbors and changed the materials. i'm fully in support of this house how it is. it's a great-looking house and fits in with the neighborhood and i appreciated the fact that they added a unit and i thought it was wise for the neighbors to recommend that so i saw both sides and i think now the project as it is is great. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> >> good evening, commissioners, neighborhood council. just as mr. mark mentioned here, i'm sorry it's late and we're i'm for getting people's last name. the fourth floor is a health floor according to the drawing. it does exist. overhead, please. that's what it looks like. that is done by the architect and that is what it looks like. one thing i just want to bring to your attention is this is not don't difficult to get rid of the fourth floor. the fourth floor is 600 feet and the project involves three car garage, 900 square feet for the garage. get rid of two cars, get 500 square feet to one unit and have three floors of three units. we are not against units. this is excellent having three units and it is perfect.

but you do not need to have the fourth floor. that's all we're asking. >> next speaker, please. >> >> >> thank you for giving us the time to voice our -- sorry. i don't do this very often. thank you. my name and i'm here as my person and the president and i'm here as a person to support our neighbors and it came to our attention the project is a little too big and i'm so glad they're doing three units because we need housing and i wanted to point out a couple of things, one of them was the

overhead, please. the measurement, it seems that the 30 feet were taken from this part instead of from this year and so it is a lot higher on the back and also the light well -- what about the light well. ok so, it's really five-storeys not four-storeys high. >> thank you, your time is up. >> >> any other public comment on this item? >> >> local residents i'm here to support my father in law and the other old time residents there and they don't feel that it's in place. they have done work to keep the neighborhood and he is kind of the mayor of the block.

and i go with what he thinks -- you know, he just does what is right always. he is a man that's just a man of principle and so is my father in law. i jushe just had a heart condit. these people do what is right so i support them. it's a good thing. they've gone to a lot of work to prepare this other proposal and it's a good propose a thank you. >> any other public comment on that item? public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> i guess a couple of things first. we've been talking about sb50 and transit oriented development, blah, blah, blah, blah. this building is a block and a half from the jay church so i'm wondering it why it needs throw-car parking to be honest with you. a block and a half. secondly, the light well on the first floor blocking the persons dwelling, the room, i'm

wondering if the stairs can be moved closer to the garage wall and have an actual entry way that's not covered so that the persons window is facing a journey man's entrance for the a.d.u. rather than a solid wall and it's something that is workable and those are the two questions. the parking don't need three cars, we stand for transit oriented development and it's a non starter for me and i would rather get rid of the fourth floor and another unit and the unit sizes are pretty good because the average unit size is 1600. i guess you would like that. i would like to get rid of some of the parking and reduce the fourth floor. >> agreed. >> motion to reduce the parking,

approve the project and take off the fourth floor. >> can we talk about the stairs moved over so there's no -- the light well goes all the way down to the grant and a hallway. >> i'd like to include that as well. >> >> second. >> we'd had direction with staff. >> mr. washington. >> del vivin washington. as i understand, as we enter the building entry and lobby area, the goals of the commission is to extend the stairway down. we have to realize that this is an entry to reach that lower unit and if we reduce some of the parking we can possibly get the width of this garage so we

can get an additional corridor that would allow access to that. is the project architect here? you think that is feasible? >> um, it's difficult. i'm looking at page a2.1. >> please, real quickly. you guys do this light bulb things all the time. we can have a fence on the property line and we will. people in this building will put their trash out there and the people next door will say, why don't you put a roof on it and well it's like gee, that's what we were proposing. and the other thing is there's a half a stray differential. we purposely did not put pits on it. we'll thin frame it and keep it as low as possible. because it is over the stair, we can lower it a little bit. as you said, the other thing to keep in mind when you go from two units to three units. the building classification

changes from an r3 occupancy to r2. fire, exiting, all that stuff gets heavy duty. it sounds like a good idea, just do this and this and that. i can lower it as low as we can but it would be very, very difficult. can i answer any questions? >> so, i mean, if you can put a2.1 up on the overhead and show us why you have to have -- you can't move the stairs closer to the garage, to where the garage actually would have been, because we're eliminating parking, why you can't have an open passageway. forget about the trash cans and all that, that's the neighborly thing people need to work amongst themselves to someone wouldn't put a compost bin under someone's window. >> it happens. >> well i know it happens. i would rather -- >> you are asking about moving these. >> the entry. >> yes. >> move them down towards the

garage. what used to be the garage. yes, where the car is. >> put it under the other stairs. >> excuse me, you are out of order. >> i think what we're trying to do -- >> the problem -- ok. right there at that line, there's a retaining wall there so we have to dig into it. we could do that. >> so you could have the passageway. >> if this is what you want and we can pass this and move forward, i'll be happy to do this. we need to just move forward. >> we love you for that. >> no worries. >> so, mr. washington, do you wants. >> i under the project architect will work with staff to meet these goals. >> get rid of the fourth floor and how many parking spaces? >> one. >> not three. >> one. >> i would be ok with one. >> one. >> yeah. >> and bicycle. >> and a bicycle parking. >> you can have thro three bicye parking. >> ok. >> so, is the secondary ok with

that. make the motion. >> so there's a motion, commissioners, it's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions have been amended to continue working with staff eliminating the fourth floor reducing the light well down to the ground and reducing the parking to one space and providing bicycle parking. on that motion commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> richards. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> press melgar. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4-0. commissioners, we're at item 21 for case number -- >> i'm sorry, we just have to take a little break. i'm sorry. it's 8:00 and we've been going since 9:00 this morning. >> we've been here 11 hours, folks. >> sorry. >> commission regular hearing for thursday, november 21, 2019.

i'll remind members of the public to silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. we left off on item 21 for 2018-009157cua at 2175 hayes street, conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. silva jiminez, the planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to permit the demolition of a one story dental office and construction of a four story residential building within the hr-3 district. a conditional use authorization is required to exceed the three dwelling units per lot in an hr-3 zoning district with the maximum of one dwelling unit per lot area. this would result in a building height of 40 feet and the conditional use authorization would allow for a total of

four four-bedroom units with a three-bedroom dwelling unit at the ground and basement floors. the project includes 144 feet of open space in a newly created year yard. five class one bicycle spaces would be provided. since the staff report this department received one letter in support and no letters of opposition regarding the proposed project. the department finds the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will add five family-sized dwelling units to the housing stock, thereby bringing the subject property into con importance with the residential uses. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for further questions. thank you. >> do we have a project sponsor? come on up. you are not the same one?

[laughter] >> good evening, commissioners. i'm very pleased to say this one is not neo valley. okay. this is a legal con forming dentist office. it takes up the entire, 100 percent lot. we are going to create the mid-block open space. as you see here, we are going to respect the light well. i'm going to talk about that in a minute. jim alexander and mike are neighbors here. i've met with them and said i would mention them because they can go back and look at the tape. there's really six items here that people are worried about. they want to get rid of this existing building. it's an eyesore. but they are worried about rodents. the owner is using synergy for

it and hired a pest control person. everybody wants the mid--block open space. i've already addressed that. at one point, nobody wanted the commercial, we used that space for the adu now that the codes have changed. there is a mona and travis i need to reach out to. they want me to adjust the light well. no problem now that i know about it. and i got an e-mail from decreeing about the rodents. he's worried about privacy. normally we are really careful with using obscure glass on that. and the last thing is they want to see parking out there. so we did that. there's a lot of bay there. so we use the rounded bays. it's modern but we are trying to stay within neighborhood context. and hey, 313, i'm ready to move

on. if you have any questions i'm ready to answer them. as far as i know there's no opposition to this. they just want to get this building down. >> thank you, mr. wise. do we have any public comment on this item? okay. with that, public comment is now closed. >> make a motion to approve. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4-0. commissioners that will place us on item -- we have already considered item 22 placing us on items 23 for case numbers

2019000745cua at 1100 thomas street. >> sorry. >> you will consider the conditd administrator will consider thee >> good evening, commissioners. michael, department staff. before you is a request for conditional use authorization to legalize the expansion of an existing 4,762 square foot agricultural use on thomas avenue. it has temporary authorization to continue operation. the fatal applied for under the permit of 2016 to 2017 to establish a greenhouse use within the building which was a one-story warehouse consistent with the planning code definition. however after completing the

permit, the site was altered to expand the mezzanine using existing beams within the building, thus turning the mezzanine into a second floor. the cannabis cultivation facility was expanded onto that new floor area. the project requires a conditional use authorization for the expansion of the industrial agriculture use which requires a conditional use authorization. the project requires a variance from the planning code section 145.1 which requires an industrial building ground floor clears 15 feet shall be retained. mezzanines don't factor into the measurements since they are not considered a story but by rendering it into a full floor, the ground floor height is no longer compliant. the department has received no correspondence regarding this application. the site is a preexisting use which will be required to comply

with cannabis licensing requirements including power from renewable sources and submitting a plan for review by the san francisco police department. the use is consistent with the core zoning district and general plan and meets the requirements of the planning code. the department recommend approval of the requested authorization. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, mr. christianson. do we have a project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is al, i'm an architect on the project. she is the proprietor of the business. i just want to give a quick presentation and let him talk. initially this building happens to be at the end of the hunter's point, the bayview district.

>> i'm sorry, can you speak into the mic. >> i'm sorry. the yellow highlighted with the red arrow is where the location of this is. this is the view of the warehouse, the actual business occupies about half the warehouse. and this is the door on griffith street, not on thomas. initially, the project was approved for creating three grow rooms inside an industrial warehouse. the three grow rooms are these. and it had a roof to contain the environment. i believe they got their permit approved -- i'm sorry. this additional room right here. and as a result of that, what ends up happening is they have

an entire roof over these rooms that could be used for grow facility. mostly for the seedlings. taking into account the tresses that account for the building, this would be the new grow area, the new grow area that they have for the seedlings. i'm going to give this up to sam so he can talk about the grow facility. >> good evening, commissioners. i know it's late so i'll try to be brief. so the whole purpose of this basically is to try to keep the whole operation in-house. and by us doing so, it's complete quality control and addresses several issues that basically the california department of food and agriculture are concerned with and the office of cannabis. so we will continue to have the ability to control the complete life cycle of the plant from

clone to mature flower. and in doing so, what happens then is we also address security issues. it minimizes the coming and going of the building instead of outsourcing it. there's minimum entry and exiting. this also controls pest management, prevents introduction of pests from outside sources. and we don't have to do that because we have the ability to do that inside on the top of this area here. it's actually just this area here, this spot right here, this part here is part of the mezzanine that's already there. so with pest management being addressed, security being addressed, we also have quality control. we keep control of our products. and also we continue to keep our local hires. we have a total of eight employees.

and we all work together and four are from the neighborhood. so if we continue doing this then some of them would not have the position there as well. so that's where we are at with that. i hope that's sufficient. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them for you. >> all right. thank you very much. >> thank you >> do we have any public comment on this item? if you would like to comment, please come up and do so now. okay. so public comment is now closed. commissioner koppel. >> seeing no questions, i'm going to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. on that motion to approve.

[roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> i'm inclined to request the granted variance. >> that will place us on item 24 for 2019-001143cua, 1465 donner avenue, conditional use authorization. >> good evening. department staff. of about you is a request for conditional use authorization to legalize an existing 10,000 square foot industrial agricultural use at 1465 donner avenue. it is a preexisting operation with temporary authorization from the office of cannabis to continue operation while legitamizing. it is in the zoning district and