>> i would like to remind members of the public the commission does not tolerate disruption or outbursts of any time. silencer devices that may sound off during these proceedings. when speaking before the commission, do state your name for the record. i would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] we expect commissioner richards to be absent today. first on your agenda his consideration of items proposed for continuance. conditional use authorization. it is proposed for continuous to genuine 203rd. and item number two, condominium

conversion is proposed for continuous to january 30th. item three a and b. for discretionary review and variance are proposed for continuance to february 27th, 2020. further, under your discretionary review calendar, we have received a request from the supervisor to which the sponsor is amenable, for item 16 to continue item 219 -- 29 at sanchez street discretionary review to february 20th, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> thank you. either any members of the public that would like to comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing non, public comment is closed. >> move to continue items one, two, iiia, three b. to the dates

proposed including item 16 to february 20th, 2020. >> second. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. if the acting zoning administrator could continue item three b. >> yes, i will continue it until the public -- february 27th also. >> thank you. that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters here are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commissioner the public or staff so requests. in which event, the matter will be removed and considered as a

separate item at this or future hearings. item four, 1630 clay street, condominium conversion. item five, 1560 wallace street, conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> is there anyone from the public would like to comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i would like to just know if i did not have the item in my packet and have not been able to review it. >> i didn't send out an e-mail when i became aware of that. it was available to everyone including the public electronically. if you don't feel comfortable, and i assume you're referring to 1630 clay street, we can continue the matter and considerate at a later date. >> i am in the same position as

commissioner moore. >> or alternatively, the city attorney reminds me that those of you who are not comparable voting could sibley recuse yourselves from that vote. most commissioners received their packet electronically. i shouldn't say most anymore. >> did you want to speak? >> i received it. i reviewed the electronic version. >> as did i. >> as did i. >> i am prepared to recuse myself because we have a majority who have reviewed it so i am fine with recusing myself. >> very good. >> i make a motion that we recuse commissioners more and diamond. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners.

on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. >> i make a motion -- don't they have to leave? >> we don't have to leave we just don't get to vote. >> i make a motion that we approve item four and five. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to -- item four and item four. >> sorry. just item four. >> on that motion to approve item four under your consent... [roll call]

so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4 -0. >> i make a motion we approve item five. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to approve item five under your consent calendar ... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. thank you for that. that will place us under commission matters. item six, consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 9th, 2020. i did want to make an amendment for clarity's sake. thank you for pointing this out. on item nine for the 12 names in the names of the commercial districts, although it acknowledges two different actions and two different votes and resolutions, we will add clarity under the action that the first action approved the gary boulevard commercial district with commissioner diamond being recused in the second action approving the

remaining 11 names for the commercial districts. we will add to that. >> anyone from the public wish to comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson? >> move to approve draft minutes with the edits as named into the record. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes as amended... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. item seven, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. i wanted to mention something that was in the news over m.l.k. holiday, which were those of you

who maybe paying attention to what is apnea across the bay, there is an organization called moms for housing who has been asserting housing as a human right by occupying an abandoned house in west oakland. there was an agreement reached right in time for m.l.k. day in which the oakland land trust will be purchasing that building and then also wedgewood properties will be working with the city and the state for all of its properties to negotiate both land trusting and negotiating the sale to nonprofit organizations. i think as we -- during this hearing, we'll be talking about the next two years, or the next year of the budget and our priorities. i think just reaffirming that land trust is a crucial component of making sure that our city has affordable housing in the long run. i think supervisor fewer's

legislation around helping nonprofits to purchase multifamily housing and keeping it affordable is great, and we must bank land and we must protect land for permanent affordable housing. i hope at some point we can have a presentation on land baking and land trusts and different tactics that cities across the country are using so we can begin to bolster that in our city as well. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners, department matters, item eight. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. no new announcements today. i think it would be interesting to talk to staff and the director about that issue and bringing some other experts in their to the land trust who have not been very visible in recent years i was thinking that if i

had been in a position during the recession to make that recommendation that the city could have purchased more land during the recession when land prices are a fraction of what they are now would have been a great thing to do. unfortunately prices are so much higher. at any rate always the future. >> thank you. >> item nine, review of past events of the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals in the historic preservation did not meet yesterday. >> quick report from me. the board met this week but they only had one item at the board and that was the 12 name neighbor commercial district that they pass on second read. if all goes according to schedule, it should be effective by march 3rd. >> thank you. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public except agenda items.

with respect to agenda items the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. you can address the public -- address the board for up to three minutes. i have two speaker cards. >> thank you for doing this. i'm not very familiar with this process but i will try to be brief. i come to you today as a last chance to save my community. we are an artistic community. we have been living in this space since 2014 with full knowledge of the landlord. we provide affordable housing to artists in san francisco. in the process of bailing out our landlord at numerous local -- occasions, she agreed to help us work through the process to file a conditional use and to make the properties fully

residential. unfortunately, the three times after she said she had agreed and assigned, they brought back and at the last minute, rejected the application and said they didn't agree. we are one of the last affordable artistic housing spots in the city. we offer space for a dance, acro yoga, music rehearsal without cost, and i wanted to bring another member of the community who has been doing a lot of art to quickly say some of the things that go on at the committee. >> i was going to say, without this community, it would be impossible for me to be a concrete artist in soma and be able to share my work with the community here.

i would most likely be pushed out of the city core. it is also really important space for me, along with many others who have learned a lot of movement and circus art in this space. space is a difficult commodity in the city. space is a difficult commodity in the city and the fact that we have so much space to educate people at low cost and for people -- artist to live here at low cost is really important and as alex said, it's one of the last spaces. we feel it's really worth preserving. >> which location are you talking about? >> it's howard street. >> the one other question i have is what the legislation says about this. i would like to direct the commissioners to look into this and provide answers as to why the department is allowing this to happen and if it can be stopped.

thank you. >> commissioner melgar? >> that was only my question. what the address was and what the department's activity has been so far because we haven't heard about it. >> i haven't heard about it either. i will talk to you about it in a minute. >> thank you for coming. >> good afternoon. picking up from last time about the alteration across the street from me in december of 2018 and heard at the board of appeals on june 19th, 2019, here it is. it was an alteration of a one-story over garage mediterranean revival unique to san francisco. excavation on the full lot with the loss of the natural rear yard and midblock open space to put a second three-bedroom unit, 11 feet below ground on this extremely steep hill. two of the three bedrooms did not have legal egress per the building code and the lower

subterranean unit. to comply with the board of appeals' decision, a second bedroom was created during the summer of 2019 by a spiral staircase in the closet, exiting on the ground level into the front entrance. they were basically -- here it is here. they made that the bedroom. that had been storage previously then they made it a meeting room so then, there it is exiting on the street. there was one entrance there and one entrance there. that is another story. two entrances on duncan street. but as the permit was about to be issued, the tracking system showed another revision and going back to all the stations at d.b.i. again. so what was this revision? it was putting an 8-foot and a 10-foot ladder in the lightwell of the 11-foot deep subterranean unit and here they are. with that they were able to get

the other two bedrooms back. there they are. overhead, please. there they are. one went into a platform into another bedroom which technically i don't think is correct or legal but that is another story. the other one went to the roof. so what is the issue with that? i filed the d.r. on this new permit and it was accepted. here it is. but then two minutes later, my check was returned. i think this questionable revision needed commission review. a better design would have been an authentic alteration using the dirk garage level to create a second unit. the back end could have had a horizontal expansion and not had one floor with three bedrooms below that for unit one, and the subterranean unit below that. the natural yard could have been preserved rather than turning the yard into an outdoor cement

bunker, which i can show you here. there is there. this project has the five bad attributes of so many projects. questionable affordability in calculations and inefficient use of internal space. it is a bad template. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else for general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i did just get a message from supervisor stephanie who is on her way up. in order to accommodate some time constraints, we will put the informational items towards the rear of the agenda so we can go ahead and call out the second item first. >> very good. that will place us under your regular calendar. as the commission president

noted, will be pushing item 10 regarding the budget and work program towards the end of the agenda and calling item 11. planning code amendment. >> she is walking up. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with planning department staff. the item before you is proposed legislation regarding the gary must not -- masonic special use district. this ordinance is proposed by supervisor stephanie who is on her way shortly. i can go ahead and give a brief overview of the ordinance as we wait for her arrival. the ordinance would amend the planning code to modify the gary masonic special use district regarding minimal parking requirements, ground floor ceiling height, and to allow payment of an inclusionary

housing fee. -- let me pause and invites supervisor stephanie up to the podium. >> you caught us right in between items. welcome, supervisor. >> thank you. good afternoon. thank you for your time and your attention to this legislation, which is extremely important to my district. before you today is a special use district that would create 101 new homes in district district two and would provide $4.5 million that our city can then leverage to create affordable housing. it is no secret that we are in the midst of a housing crisis. i am doing everything i can to make sure that my district does its fair share to increase density were appropriate and

provide homes for families and working people. in this case, i am concerned that the perfect will become the enemy of the good. the result of which will be a vacant sight and a missed opportunity. when the sponsor approached me and asked me to make this modification to the special use district to enable them to pay an in lieu fee, i had to tell you, i wasn't pleased. i am very supportive of mixed income housing and i am supportive of on-site inclusionary and i encourage it. so we went months back and forth with the project sponsor on why this was necessary. as i took the project sponsor to task over why they were unable to build the housing they had agreed to under the initial s.u.d., i was assured by the project sponsor and their advisors that the current market conditions and the overall cost and burden would lead to know

housing and a dead project without this modification to the s.u.d. the cost of land, entitlements, exactions, and inclusionary impacts coupled with meteoric rise in construction cost was rendering the project on finance double. like i said, it took me months to be convinced. we are seeing this problem citywide, as you know. as of the latest planning department report, there were 72,565 units of housing entitled 87% of which were not under construction. if we are going to address our housing crisis, it is not enough to entitle housing. we have to make sure the projects actually get built. as it stands now, the lucky penny project is on the verge of being one of those statistics that will not be built. so as you consider my legislation today, there are a number of things i would like you to consider. this property, if you have gone

by it, is currently blighted, unproductive and in a deteriorating site. if we fail to act today, it could remain in this state for many years to come. that is not acceptable to me. the s.u.d. allows for 101 units of housing on a parcel that was initially zoned for only 21 units. you're talking about 21 units, eight stories of luxury housing. these units, while they would not be deed restricted as affordable, they would be compact, affordable by design units as a result of the s.u.d. enabling the greater density. it almost seems obvious there should be more density. twenty-one luxury units, eight stories, it is obvious there should be more density because why? this location is transit rich. it has easy, walkable access to the 38 gary and one california buses, and is located on a transit line where our city is

investing $300 million to build the new prt. the project will create high-quality construction jobs and the sponsor has committed to using union labor for the project. ensuring we will be creating jobs with fair wages and benefits. a longhand thorough community outreach process brought the surrounding neighborhoods together in support of this project. and finally, the project will provide, like i said, $4.5 million in much-needed in lieu funding to provide subsidized affordable housing for projects that are in the city's affordable housing pipeline. i have heard concerns that the funds should go to district two and if the commissioners feel strongly, i would be open to recommendation from the commission to amend the legislation to keep these funds in district two. i am actively working with mocd defined locations for 100% affordable projects in my district. this funding could be a welcome addition to make sure we create housing for all levels of income in district two. the legislation is not perfect.

i know you're not happy with me, but i think, in an ideal world, we would all love to see mixed income or 100% affordable projects on every sight. building housing now is far better than the alternative of letting this site sit vacant. we must take action. i come before you today asking you to help me build 101 new homes in district two that has historically built very little housing. i respectfully request you to consider moving this legislation forward. so we can start making housing progress in district two now. thank you. >> thank you. let me also say that she has been doing a really good job putting in a lot of time, hours, and effort with other projects and this one. thank you for your time and effort. do you want to continue?

>> thank you, president koppel. as a supervisor stephanie described, the ordinance will amend the existing as you do to allow an affordable housing option fee. the department is recommending eliminating such options with the concerns that the project is already receiving a density bonus and bonuses typically that are granted in exchange providing on-site affordable housing. the project will receive this greater density that we will not receive that on -- on-site affordable housing. regarding the amendment to retain collected funds within district two and speaking with amir's office of housing, we do understand they are the agency to administer the citywide affordable housing fund. they feel that it is easier and easier to maximize a larger part

of money. also, to add to date, the department has not received any correspondence regarding the ordinance. the departments of prose -- proposes -- supports a proposed ordinance with modification as discussed and we are available for any additional questions. thank you. >> let's open this up to public comment. i do have speaker cards. [calling names] anyone else is more than welcome to speak. line up on the screen side of the room and come -- come on up when you are ready. >> i guess i will keep it short because supervisors have already said what i've what i have already said. good afternoon to the commissioners.

i am also a resident of san francisco. every conversation that i have regarding san francisco and the bay area always reverts back to housing no matter what we start with. this is a project that i don't see any sensible opposition. they will be building 100% union and living wages and benefits for local workers. we all know of a lot of projects that have gone away because they are strung along so long. this is a project that can happen if you approve it. it is a good project in much-needed. i would ask you approve the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with the sheet metal workers. first, let me congratulate you, commissioner koppel on being the new president of the commission

and thank you to make -- commissioner milker for all your hard work that you did with your time as president of the commission. i will cut right to the chase. this project is important to us in the construction trades. it is important that this project get built this cycle. if you ask anybody in the construction work, time is money this project got held up for a lot of reasons. not to disrespect the city, but it got 18 months where it was held up in planning. it adds cost. seniors will be graduating now in june. those students will want to find a good career in the building trades. it only works when there is union construction jobs and also

what we would like to do is continue our can -- collaboration with city build academy in the office of economic and workforce development so we can continue to bring in city build graduates into the trades. it only happens when there was good union construction jobs out there. we look forward to your support. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is javier florez. i am here on behalf of labor local 261. i am here in support of this project. for any union, it's realistic to identify or to see what kind of project we are building. in this particular case, it's easy.

easy to decide from our side -- [indiscernible] -- to approve this kind of a project after being informed and aware of a out what is going on on the delays and the things happening. in this case, procedure based. they committed themselves to 100% union. what else can we ask for? members, apprentices, community, all included in this particular project. it is an opportunity for everybody basically. we want to move forward with this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> good afternoon. my name is jason pierce and i am a field representative from the carpenter's union. i represent 43,000 carpenters in northern california. thousands of which live and work here in san francisco. we're here to support the bay venture project as proposed. bypassing this amendment, it will bring much-needed housing, designed for students, workers and young families in the lower neighborhood as well as good paying head of household jobs. there are so many college students in san francisco who are looking for convenient housing in the neighborhood. in all likelihood, without the ability to pay off the off-site fee, this will never be built. there are many retailers and small businesses in laurel heights that would benefit from a new development. it would bring much-needed activity to the area. they have always committed to build this project using 100% union labor.

by proving this project as proposed, you will create hundreds of union jobs and give local apprentices the opportunity to advance their careers in construction while at the same time contributing money towards 100% affordable housing projects that will also use union labor. we desperately need housing for all income levels. in conclusion, the carpenter's union supports the development as proposed and we ask the commission supports this planning code amendment as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am a member of local 38, plumbers and steamfitters as well as the san francisco building trades. congratulations to the president i am here on behalf of all of our members to speak in favor of this project. presidio bay has done everything we have asked. we feel that this project will create jobs during, before, and

after the actual construction. so we hope that you guys support this project as much as we do. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. i am a member of the local carpenter 22 in san francisco. i am here speaking on behalf of presidio, in support of presidio bay ventures. it's really important. in my opinion, it is a pretty tough trade. not so much physically and mentally tough. for me personally, i was born in mexico and grew up in san francisco. i have been here since i was one

, maybe two. coming to the union, it was actually my birthday. i graduated from a pre apprenticeship program. i had an honor to have such a great teacher. i had a dream, too. like martin luther king. i had a dream one day of teaching. one of the teachers told us that you had to get a degree if you wanted to teach. you had to get accredited. so i tried taking a few classes in college but it wasn't the right time. i would like to return one day and pursue my career and get a degree as a structural engineer one day. in order for me to do that, i have to get working. it's great that it will be affordable housing and a place

for everybody to live in. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission. i am a san francisco resident native. i'm also a field representative with carpenter's local 22. i'm here this afternoon to speak as a resident of the neighborhood where the project is to be built. i drive by this sight probably four to five times a week. and since the lucky penny closed , i have kept my eye on this want to see how it is progressing. you've got a developer who is ready to move on it. it is a great project. it is 100% union. it will add 101 units of housing that san francisco desperately needs. it provides living space for college students, and the neighborhood businesses can

benefit from this. it is a very underutilized sight currently and i just urge you to move forward with this. it's a good project. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i work with the organized mechanical trade and i'm here with the special use district amendment. there is no point in my repeating what everybody else has said so eloquently. i want to change it up a little bit and give you a broader context. especially with how we have been talking about this large pipeline that we have in san francisco. what we have been seeing in the trades is often times when a project can't be built, it will be sold off to someone else. and what has been happening is often times projects that have come before you early on where

the developers have made commitments to workers and local contractors and ultimately our local workforce development pipeline for construction, come back after the transfers and the sales and the value engineering and the only way the projects will be able to go, for them, is if they jettison all the substantive community benefits that they talk about at the front end. these guys aren't doing that. they have been working diligently and been talking to all of us to move this thing forward and find solutions. what they have been consistent throughout is they are not going to jettison these substantive community benefits. let's recall that under our own city's planning guidelines, inclusionary are supposed to be equivalent. is a developer's choice. this is part of the discussion

with the special use district at that time. you are being faced with a choice. do you want to allow this modification or do you want the developer to throw out additional community benefits that have been negotiated outside of the planning process? with everything that has been said, the commitment we heard from all corners of the city to construction workers, to our local economy, to our local folks who want to get into the construction industry, it becomes an easy choice. we just move into another column doing what our own guidelines say is equivalent and we keep the community benefits. thank you for your consideration i hope you will both support -- i hope you will all support this project. >> thank you. anyone else from the public wish to comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioners?

commission moore? >> thank you supervisor stephanie for coming and clearly laying out the strategy of why you are asking us to reconsider the project and thank you to all union representatives for making your case. you know that this commission is always in full support of each and all of you, but i like for you for one moment to take time and listen to one of the arguments. we fought for this project is a commission quite hard because we did have to look at it under slightly different circumstances and just building on the lot. and one of the things which we feel considerably more pushed into the corner was to see developers provide on-site housing. the reason is, all deferred in lieu fees are subject to the same kind of increase in construction cost used by the mayor's office or used by the

developers for who you build. we do not have the critical mass to build affordable housing at the same rate that these monies come in because it takes a lot more than just having the money. i want to lay that out to you for you to think about it. i have not yet made up my mind. i'm here to listen and fully understand the pros and cons and i'm looking for my other fellow commissioners to carry on the conversation. >> commissioner melgar? >> thank you. i will provide a little bit of my perspective. i administered the inclusionary program for many years. i'm leaning towards supporting this legislation. i would like to get assurance

from the supervisor that we will spend it within district two or at least the surrounding area. i know that side abuts two other districts. it is important to have that be the investment and affordable housing in the district. and i am surprised about the mayor's office of housing position and i don't think that is the case. i will disagree with the current staff because there are many different programs that can take this investment, not just the tax credit, multi family, there was also, as we have talked about earlier today, you know, the kobo legislation that enables nonprofits to acquire small sights. there is an opportunity to preserve existing rental housing

there is down payment assistance , there's all kinds of things that we could do with this money and the affordable housing fund. what i will say is that, you know, i believe the on-site inclusionary housing is good. there is a social purpose to that, and i also think that we should have the flexibility to deal with countercyclical nature of our investment in affordable housing. what i mean by that is we fund a lot of our affordable housing based on the fees that are paid by the market rate housing production. and one production is really high, that also means that land costs are high and, you know, labor costs are high. so what happens when the market softens is that we run out of money. at a time when we could actually purchase land and invest in affordable housing. so we need to really think through that and be able to adjust when we need to, which i

think is the case here. i do have a question about the density bonus and whether or not we are paying fees for that. i understand we are at 30% and the nexis study has us right at that limit. i get that and i wouldn't want to go over that because i don't want to jeopardize legally. that is my big question about the project specifically in the s.u.d. but other than that, i am supportive. i want this to be built and i also want to make sure that we invest the affordable housing dollars in the surrounding neighborhood, which is not seen a lot of affordable housing development, and frankly hasn't seen a lot of market rate development either. it is a good thing all around. thank you. >> commissioner fun?

>> questions for staff. >> the 101 units, is this proposed to be all student housing? >> the project is proposed for a rental unit. i don't think they some project information from the sponsor that this is student housing. >> the brief didn't include anything to that. what was passed out right now talks about student housing. >> commissioners, good afternoon i am with presidio bay. i would like to just start by thanking supervisor stephanie for your leadership throughout this process. the handout references the fact there's a tremendous amount of demand by students and this is

placing pressure on the housing stock in the surrounding area. it's not a student housing project. it's a for rent multifamily project. >> okay. i assumed that the change in the design in terms of dividing the gap in the building is due to exposure requirements for the greater density. >> yes. the u-shaped configuration is to achieve the minimum requirements for exposure. >> okay. last question for staff is, there is also a reduction in the ground floor height. 14 feet, which has been prevalent everywhere. i'm not sure where the genesis came from, but is that related to the pg and e. requirements for on-site, above grade transformers?

>> the they changed it to be from 14 to 12. it's related to the topography for the specific sight mac -- sights. there was additional commercial spaces. in order to comply -- are based on the tipoff -- topography, we would not be able to meet the required 14 feet for said new commercial space. that is really where this change is coming from in order to accommodate the additional commercial space. >> or is it the reduction in height so they are not classified as high-rise? >> change specifically for the ground floor floor to ceiling height requirement is related to the commercial space, not for the overall building height. >> it has no impact on the requirement to try to put all transformers above grade? >> not that staff is aware of,

but again, i would like to invite the project sponsor if they have additional information >> the changes that she indicated is purely driven by the topographical issues along masonic. it was -- what would otherwise be common area space for the residential building and we cannot serve as actual commercial space. we are intending on creating a micro retail street as to just providing commercial on the corner, as was originally designed. we determined that as we did more engineering, particularly through the value engineering that we did with the removal of the basement and the parking, which was also a tremendous effort that the team undertook to reduce costs before we raised the flag and determined this was the only way to move forward. >> do you have loading space?

>> we don't have loading space. we have no parking at this point we have eliminated all parking completely. >> i understand, but there are no loading spaces? >> there are three commercial loading spaces along gary adjacent to our building and public storage building on the street. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. thank you to supervisor stephanie and staff for all of your hard work on this and for laying out so many of the things that we, at the commission have sat with in our determinations. thank you also to vice president moore for the benefit of the public and explaining what we are sitting with as we are in conversation about this project. we absolutely support union labor and see that providing housing as a benefit to the city and is important, what it is our due diligence to be in conversation about the trade-offs that we make in this

project. thank you also to my fellow commissioner melgar who really laid out a lot of the points that i wanted to make. this is, and sitting with this project, this is an incredibly unique project and i have watched the many years that this project has gone through because this is, it's in my neighborhood and speaking about this space as of late in the community as an opportunity for the community is really important. i think just recognizing that the initial challenge here is that given current zoning, this is woefully underutilized space. the idea that 21 units would go in this parcel is madness. and thank goodness we are going to get 101 units of housing. i too -- my heart broke because the promise of cities is that we

can all live together across income brackets, across life experiences and be really integrated. when i think about the surrounding area, it is right adjacent to this property. there is affordable housing deeper in the district. it is deeper towards kaiser, and then also thinking about the inner richmond and just weaving the fabric together by having the space there is important. i would also agree that i was surprised to hear the feedback from the mayor's office of housing because i do think that the funding could be well utilized in the district and surrounding areas. i would be open to the flexibility of it being used in

the surrounding areas beyond district two, but it could be well utilized there. that would help me feel more comfortable with this. but overall, you know, the benefits of 101 units of housing , and a place in a district where it is desperately needed, the realities of everything that have been laid out around construction cost, around union labor, for me, put it over the edge and i am supportive of this legislation. >> commissioner diamond? >> i too want to thank supervisor stefani and all of the representatives from various unions who came to spoke. it's helpful to hear your testimony. i have been struggling with this because if i understand the staff report correctly, what the legislation would do is allow the project to go forward -- the original project was granted a great deal of additional density in return for doing on-site affordable and that the reason

the planning department is recommending this is they want to keep the density but they don't want to do on-site affordable, and that potentially creates a precedent for other projects coming in in the future saying, we too are suffering from extreme constructive cost and it makes these projects and buildable. we would like relaxation on some of the requirements. i spent a lot of time walking around the area. i live in the neighborhood as well, too. it is an incredibly challenging intersection. the bus yard is across the street, the intersection part of it dives under the street, there is a median in the middle of it, it is incredibly challenging from a pedestrian perspective coupled with horrendous traffic from trader joe's, which is right next to it. the traffic is bad. there are signs of improvements

being made in the neighborhood like the very nice landscaping improvements that are going on just south on masonic, which are changing the feel of the place, and that the benefit of having the additional 101 units versus continuing the existing blighted state makes me open to the argument that in this particular instance, given the unique circumstances of this particular project, especially given the underlining an external reload and inappropriate density zoning for the site, which, by the way, is something we should be looking at in general, allow me to come to the conclusion that given the unique circumstances of this site, i could see voting in favor of this, although i too would like to see the affordable fee spent in the area or at least in the district.

>> before i go to the other commissioners, i wanted to chime in for one second. as the years have gone by, every time i walk or drive by an empty ground floor parking lot, i say, man, we should really have some housing there. whenever i drive by the same ground floor locked on a corner, i say, man, even better reason to have some residential and retail. then when it is near transit, i even more say, man, we should have some housing and retail here. then it is also in district two, which doesn't have as much projects coming our way, just like district four. even more reason why westside should be doing their fair share of trying to house our residents commissioner fung? >> a couple less comments. i think the fact that the envelope that would have been driven by the bonus with

affordable housing on-site allowed them to create a tremendous number of units that are smaller. i think that sets -- that is an important thing for us to look at in light of issues of both the length of time it takes to get entitled, construction costs , and the fact that the requirement is fairly extensive. [please stand by]

>> there may be some other fund changes that we need to make, but we can discuss that issue. >> thank you. we did check to make sure that that was something that was leg legal. >> i am prepared to make a motion to approve the statement of desire by adding that the supervisor indeed earmarks or

indeed finds a way to allocate the in lieu fees for use in the district or nearby. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, commissions, there is a motion that has been seconded. if i could get clarification approving with staff modifications or without. without staff modifications and approving the supervisor to earmark the fees on that motion. [roll call vote]. >> within the district service amenity. aye. >> very good. [roll call vote].

>> that will place on item 12 at 2017-011214 cstcua on 9 apollo street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for the property at 9 apollo street. the proposed project entails removal of the existing unauthorized dwelling unit by merging it with the single-family home above. the unauthorized unit is located at the ground floor and is only

accessed through the garage. the unit includes one bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom with varying ceiling heights that do not exceed 7 feet and therefore do not comply with building code requirements for ceiling heights. when the unauthorized unit was created, it eliminated access to the back yard resulting in compliance open space for the upper unit. an independent appraiser determined the cost to legalize the unit would be approximately $1 million, while adding approximately $165,000 to the value of the property. the high construction cost is mostly due to the excavation which is required to provide sufficient ceiling heights for the unit to be habitable. this includes the cost of legalization city wide which per the department of building inspection is approximately $66,000. however, the cost is comparable to the highest cost of city-wide

which is approximately $850,000. the unauthorized unit is currently occupied and appears to have been occupied by a tenant for ten years as per documentation provided. removal of this unit would cause displacement to the current tenant. due to the cost of the legalization, the city-wide average, and the gain in property value, the department recommend recommen recommends approval to restore it with the single-family home above while restoring access to the space. this recommendation is based on the criteria of removal for the unauthorized unit. i am available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor.

>> good afternoon. my name is quinton donley and this is my wife. i would like to read a short statement as i have a huge fear of public speaking. over three years ago after outgrowing our current home, my wife and i saved money to purchase a bigger home to give our three boys a bigger living environment. we searched for single-family homes near to my family. when we searched we had to exclude a number of homes that were in our area because they had a.d.u.s. when we got 9 apollo it was a blight on the neighborhood, as

it is today. after getting the keys, we discovered it was occupied by an individual and he's said he lived in the a.d.u. downstairs, which we were not aware of. we attempted to work out a relocation agreement several times, but the occupant demands upwards of $100,000 which isn't financially feasible for us. it's just beyond our means. as it stands right now, the legal representation of the occupant has argued and won by summary judgment that the a.d.u. doesn't meet minimum inhabiting requirements. additionally and i debated whether or not mentioning this, but i believe it adds information to the overall case. the occupant frequently doesn't pay his utility bills.

this has gone on several times. it's a matter of public record. there are additional liens. i believe he does this knowingly to cause us additional financial hardship. most recently the last lien is dated from december 20th. i have it here if you would like to see it on the overhead. as i said, this has happened dozens of times before. it's on record, with liens being placed against us for non-payment of utilities. as mentioned by professional estimates, it would cost more to legalize the a.d.u. than the building is currently worth. which in its current state the a.d.u. effectively prevents us from using the rest of the house because it was way that it was kind of happen -- haphazardly

done. because of this, we can't access any of the utilities. so in case of energy or a breaker trips, we wait until we can gain access in order to restore basic services or if there is a fire or anything else, again, we can't have access to it because that is blocked by the garage and that is currently demising the a.d.u. our goal is to demolish the a.d.u. and return the home to a livable state where we can live and occupy. that's really all there is. i hope we can be granted this conditional use permit and proceed with the demolition. representatives from building solutions, the people that produced the estimate, are here today to answer any technical questions, as well as if you

have any questions for myself or my wife. thank you for your time. >> thank you. we may have questions later. i have one speaker card for quinton donley, but anyone else is welcome to line up on the screen side of the room. >> i'm sorry, the speaker card was for the project sponsor. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is margaret dematio. i'm an attorney and i represent the tenants of 9 apollo street. they are both minors. i do have a powerpoint prepared. i provided some copies. did you all receive one? okay.

without addressing some of the statements made by quinton donley in much detail, i will admit that there has been a contentious series of years of litigation on this case. there have been -- this would be now a fifth eviction attempt of my clients. specifically, just to address the non-payment of rent issue, it is relevant here in regards to one of the factors that should be considered in determining whether or not to approve this, which is was there an eviction at the property it's planning code section 317 that provides the additional criteria for review. and currently the motion for summary judgment that we were successful on is up on appeal.

mr. donley's attorney has amend that as pending. it's a slow process. but there is a chance that the motion for summary judgment will get overturned and there will be an eviction at the property. pursuant to two, three-day notices that were we believe not served in good faith, the court agreed. but there is a chance it will get overturned. so that is something that should be considered. additionally, other criteria in planning code section 317 that relates to the owner's intended use of the property. there's been a long-standing narrative that these owners purchased the property with the intent to live there as a family. they currently live in a home at 51 tucker with their family. but on exhibit 1, page 20, it's the real estate purchase

addendum that i included with my presentation. i've tabbed it for you -- actually, sorry, let me go back one. it's page 1 of the exhibit 1. it's the winning bidder confirmation page. and if you look down at right above the signatures of the property owners, there is a section that says first-time buyer? no. owner occupied? no. investment and it's checked. this property was purchased with the intent to use it as an investment property. if you look at page 20 of the exhibit i've attached, these are documents i obtained in discovery through our litigation. >> i'm sorry, ma'am, your three minutes are up. the commissioners may have additional questions for you later. >> sure. thank you. >> next speaker, please. anyone else? okay. public comment is closed.

commissioners. commissioner melgar. >> thank you. i am not going to be supportive of this conditional use application. i have never been supportive of not legalizing a unit when it's feasible to do it, and i think, you know, given the real estate prices in our city, i think there is a way to legalize it. i also really resent being put in a position of someone losing their home through the planning process. so i would not be supportive of this. and let me just say that for someone doing an owner move-in

eviction when, you know, there is a property acquired that you need to use for your home, there is a process to do that, and it does include a buyout because that is the law. and i think that that is the appropriate way of doing it, to follow the process. i don't think this is the way. >> commissioner moore. >> could you give us a quick overview of what it would take to legalize the unit as an a.d.u.? my understanding is the architectu architectural intervention is significant. could you elaborate for the commission. >> i will ask ms. di cost a to come up to the mic. >> thank you, commissioners. so the unit goes up here to qualify for the program. the department of building inspection would require

substantive changes in order for the unit to be habitable. and as part of their packet there is -- i believe it's called the cost of legalization document that was reviewed by the department of building inspection at a pre-inspection meeting. at a minimum, it would require excavation and there would need to be a defined entry into the unit. so the front would have to be modified in one way or another, whether they would add a second pedestrian entry to the left of the garage or the garage can be converted since we no longer require minimum parking requirements. so the unit can become larger and have an entry on the front. thank you. >> two questions, what is the -- remind us again what is the estimated cost to do the legalizati legalizati legalization?

>> based on the documentation provided by the sponsor, it is approximately $1 million. so that includes i think roughly $800,000 of materials and labor and the remaining would be inspection costs and other various things, but i would like to invite the sponsor if they have anything to add to that. >> at the same time the sponsor's addressing that, can they driveways whether or not a buyout offer was made. >> these are, once again, building solutions. we have made several buyout offers over the past three years that this process is going on. we did attempt several buyout offers in good faith as i mentioned previously, but we weren't able to meet the amount demanded of us. thank you. >> my name is shawn with building solutions. thank you all for your time. so the majority of the work to excavate down, if you look at

that neighborhood, it's -- the ceiling heights are so low in the basement, to excavate down, you would undermine the foundations. because it's zero lot lines, you're undermining yours and the neighbors on each side. you should have to shore up an injection growth the entire way around the foundation to start digging down. that doesn't account for all the structural upgrades the city would need you to do to do this work. you wouldn't only be touching the lower floor. you would have to transfer all the structural loads up through the building. to do that is essentially you're touching all the finishes on the second floor and redoing the entire first floor. when you lower the building down, now your walls are too short. now you have to extend down all your walls and structural components, essentially redoing most of the structural components for the entire building and all the plumbing and mechanical that's in there

currently, which is all tied into the ceilings and the sound separations which are all required, which are all in the documents given to you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. so it has traditionally been the thought of this body that we do not want to take actions that result in the eviction of somebody that is living in a property and at the same time this a.d.u. is a sub-standard property that -- a resolution needs to happen. i wanted to ask to bring up the legal counsel of mr. guiterres. what i read in the packet, it did seem several buyout offers were made. when i saw you shaking your

head, i would love to hear what had happened and what you see as kind of the process going forward for this looking like. >> yes, thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. there are a few things in that narrative that are not true. it begins with the documentation i submitted in which they claim that my client demanded $84,000 and pounded his fists on the car. that's the first time i'm hearing about that. i deposed this person and asked about the tenancy of my client. he's had numerous opportunities to provide that information. we settled a meager amount to the global resolution. there would have been a global resolution if the amount was reasonable. our office doesn't demand unreasonable things in these

kinds of buyouts. we understand the problems of him living in an uninhabitable unit, but in this housing crisis the amount that it requires for a family to relocate is not going to be $20,000 or whatever it was that they offered at the mediation. so we didn't accept, considering that if we were to -- if he was to relocate pursuant to an o.m.i. which has been attempted or failed or even this, he'll be getting that in more for the ordinance, the statutory amount. so that was basically an offer of nothing and we denied it. but there were not multiple buyout offers. it's been a very contentious relationship since day one. so my client tries to avoid them at all costs. but if there's any further questions about that aspect, i'd

be happy to answer. but ultimately i wanted you to know, my client is not unreasonable. he understands it's hard to reside in an uninhabitable unit, but there hasn't been a meaningful settlement negotiation. that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future, but that's why it means we need to have a continuance or see what will happen with this appeal which they brought. until then we respectfully urge that you refrain from any kind of approval. >> thank you. this is so sad. i don't think we can make a decision on this case today personally. i think that there's too much outstanding information, including an open court case. so i also would not be prepared to move this forward. >> commissioner melgar. >> so i am prepared to deny this

today. but i understand that other folks see other nuances that i don't see. it's pretty clear-cut for me, but i would support a continuance until after the court case is settled, if that's the way the commission is going. i also just want to say that making this decision to absorb the unit into the main home is counter to everything we've been doing as a commission in terms of adding density to our neighbors, particularly in this neighbor which is still solidly a working-class neighborhood. so i don't want to do that as president. i also -- you know, the -- although i understand what our code says, having this be a financial decision makes this

feel deeply uncomfortable. this was a speculation purchase. when folks buy houses and property in san francisco, even if it's at auction, you should do your due diligence about what you're buying. this is a financial decision. so to me using that as the reason for not legalizing the unit makes me deeply, deeply uncomfortable. so if we were voting on this today, i would vote to deny it. i'm okay with continuing it until we have more information or there is a resolution. i do think that from what i'm seeing out in the field and knowing of the tenderloin housing clinics work, if there is a buyout before this comes to us, i would want to know that this was a reasonable and fair thing and i'm not seeing that today. >> question for staff.

in terms of this overall process, if a conditional use is granted, that doesn't preclude all of the other actions whether it goes through the rent board or all the other things that occur with the tenancy. >> that's correct. >> commissioner moore. >> i would be supporting a continuance in the way that commissioner johnson described it. there are too many still contradictory facts. what is truly missing in response to what commissioner melgar is saying, i really do not have any idea about the size of the units in question as to whether or not the lower unit is really even by size, aside from the missing ceiling height, suitable for what is described as for a family with three children. there is contradiction in the staff report itself, and again

it's probably a long -- spans many years. does the family actually live is there or is only the father of the family living there? so there are all kinds of hints of what is really happening and not happening. we should not get in the middle as to whether or not utilities have or have not been paid. that is an issue between a landlord and the tenant. i would like to see more clarification on all ends, including basically the legal question that was touched on by the housing clinic to be clarified. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i would also say that i hear you. commissioner melgar, i think it has been the position of this body also that we are looking for densification and if it cannot happen through an a.d.u., what are the other possibilities

on this property for a second unit to happen. that might mean the right of first refusal, moving the tenant, and then bringing the tenant back. so i would hope to get more information on what might be possible on the site if not what's proposed. >> i hear all of the arguments that are being made by my fellow commissioners, but it doesn't seem right to spend $1 million. so whatever solution we come up with has to have some financial reality attached to it and that just doesn't seem right to me. >> i'm in agreement with that. i would not support the dialling up of this automatically. however, you know, they may want to look at the realities of the situation to be able to come to a conclusion on this and it probably involves some legal

manoeuvri manoeuvring. nobody has looked at and disagreed with the cost. we know it's going to cost some. one could have taken the more logical approach to analyze that cost and either agree or disagree. i guess if all parties are accepting of that cost, then there is a place in the process that deals with this. so unless there is a response that can prove those costs are not as great, then i'm accepting of it. >> question for staff. what would happen if the c.u. was approved? how would the already-residing

family be affected? >> that's a good question. we can definitely follow up with more specifics from the rent board once we can follow up up with them, but basically it would be a demolition. >> that would automatically happen? >> you would be removing the unit from the housing stock, so i imagine it would be a de facto eviction. you actually -- we can definitely follow up with more information on that as well. >> commissioner moore. >> are we waiting for an answer? >> a question for clarity.

>> i think i got the answer. >> we wouldn't accept the costs as presented and at least request that before a decision be made two or three additional business be presented. >> commissioner moore. >> i couldn't hear your last sentence. >> two or three business would be presented, that we would look at other people's costs. >> which would mean that a motion to continue would be the right response to what you're asking. so i make a motion to continue to gather more facts and let some of the background sort itself out while we wait. >> commissioner fung. >> i would be supportive of a continuance, but not for that purpose. you know, you can analyze this to death. both parties are going to have to look at whether there's realistically some type of a settlement. i would be supportive of a continuance to allow that to

occur. >> commissioners, just given the tenor of information and the uncertainty in terms of the settlement, i actually might recommend an indefinite continuance. then we would renotice the project appropriately once we get a good resolution in terms of where the settlement is occurring and/or any other information that the commission might put on the sponsor or the tenant to basically bring forward as we look forward. just given the trend of how the continuances work, we wouldn't know -- we don't have certainty in terms of when this is going to be happening. once staff obtain the information, we can renotice and bring the hearing and the case back to the commission. >> in general i like that idea, but i don't like the indefinite nature of it because the legal process could take a year or two years and i don't think that's

the right position to leave the property owner in. i do think we should gather more information. i agree with commissioner fung that i want to encourage the property owner and the tenant to get together. but an indefinite continuance for me is going too far. >> commissioner melgar. >> and i would agree to an indefinite continuance. the reason is that i think the power dynamic here is imbalan d imbalanced, it's not the same. and it would put the onus of speeding things up on the property owner. you know, i think that because of, i would be in favor of an indefinite continuance. so i would make a motion that we continue this item indefinitely.

>> second. >> i made a motion. i would have to amend my motion. >> you did make a motion. i don't recall hearing a second to it and there was no date on the continuance. >> so that's indefinite? >> yes. >> okay. >> so there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter indefinitely. [roll call vote]. >> that motion fails 3-3. so -- a bit of a logjam. >> i'm going to move to continue this for a period of two months. >> second.

>> commissioner johnson. >> can you say why about the timing to help me understand as i deliberate. >> one is i'm also in agreement that assigning a timing makes the parties get together. two months seems to be a reasonable time based on my experience dealing with legal counsel. i'll defer to counsellor dyman. >> i'm not counsellor, just to be clear about that. but i also believe that two months puts pressure to come to an agreement because they don't know what we're going to do. we're split and they're taking their chances if we can't come to an agreement. two months is a good amount of

time that instead of us imposing a solution on you that you might not like, that you can come up with something you like. >> then we could also extend the continuance if we needed more time. >> that's correct. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to remind both parties the urgency of resolving this is most and first and foremost on this commission's mind when giving a continuance. we're not doing it because we don't know, but we want to basically fully understand what is going on and get this resolved as scwibleg as possible because the issue of housing and the particular type we are speaking about is extremely important to us. >> commissioner dyman. >> i would suggest getting another bid would be in your interest to confirm the pricing on the original bid. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to april 2.

[roll call vote]. >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us on item 13 for case 2019-015062cua on 500 la guns street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. bridget hicks, planning department staff. the project before you is a

conditional use authorization for the change of use from a retail sales and service to a cannabis retail use. the project site is located within the boundaries of the hays zoning district which requires a conditional use for any project to change to a cannabis retail use. the project is located in an existing three-storey commercial and residential building at the corner of laguna and felve street. it includes the gloor and basement. the space has been vacant since approximately 2016. there are no schools or other cannabis retail establishments within 600 feet of the subject property. there are currently no cannabis establishments within the valley to be heard later today. the nearest location is an m.c.d. on market street over a mile away. the sponsor has designed the space to have a lobby and a security check-point at the

front to limit visibility of products. the product is subject to the regulation. the department does not recommend any additional restrictions to restrict consumption on site. to date, the department has received 16 individual letters and 34 form letters of support for the project, referencing the benefit of keeping a vacant store front. the department has received two letters of opposition, noting that this area is a family area. sponsors held two community meetings in accordance with the office of cannabis' good neighbor policies on january 16th and 18th. staff recommends approval of this conditional use request. as noted in the executive summary, the project proposes a new active use to a vacant store

front. this is served by transit. the project is consistent with the intent of the hays valley district. this concludes my presentation. the sponsor has a short presentation and we're available for questions. >> thank you. >> hi members of the commission. we're going to try to get my keynote up real quick. give me just one second. my speech runs about six minutes just so you know. i'm going to try to keep it brief. thank you for taking the time to review my permit application. before i begin, i would like to thank everyone who has supported me along this journey and i would like to thank the office of cannabis and equity program who made this moment possible for me. i would like to thank michael christianson for reviewing our application and all you've done for the equity program. and a sincere thanks to our

planner bridget hicks. i'm chris kalway, the project sponsor. i've lived all over our great city for 20 years and consider hays valley to be my home. i'm a father of a child and a founder of the laguna arts project. i was recently honored with being awarded this permit for my store. i've seen firsthand the impact cannabis can have on the lives of those who need it most and have devoted 15 years of my life to medical cannabis. the challenges of obtaining equitable participation in the cannabis industry begins with securing real estate, investment capital, and finding like-minded individuals to partner with.

given the uncertainty of the process for private investors, raising capital before securing a property can be stressful and challenging. i am still the sole owner of mr. c.'s and i have full control over how its future will look. at an equity event i attended in spring of 2018, michael christianson spoke and had some advice of finding storefronts in our neighborhoods that have been vacant for some period of time. our proposed site here has seen quite a variety of businesses come and go over the years, a spanish market, an event space, an art gallery. i'm hopeful this is destined to be a world-class cannabis boutique next. i took possession of 500 laguna

in december 2018. i wanted to engage with the neighborhood to speak about my plan. after being formally reviewed for planning, our building underwent an extensive seismic retrofit. we immediately launched into the second phase of our community outreach campaign. we sent out two separate mailings to over 400 businesses, residents, and property owners in 300 feet of our proposed location and invited people to our property. now, i can understand the

concept of cannabis retail coming into hays valley is new for some people, but there are several reasons i believe this is an ideal location for this business. access for local residents and visitors to the area are challenged because of a lack of any retailers in the area. the size of our store is consistent with other boutique retailers in the area and i can assure the -- >> can you slow down a little bit. i know you're trying to make this the -- >> i'm sorry. i'm just trying to get it all in the time. >> can you go slower so i can hear all your words. >> my apologies. the size of our store is consistent with other boutiques in the area and i can assure the planning commission and someone who lives in san francisco, our boutique will look nothing like the dark shops of the past.

i want to respect the historic character of the property and to blend in with the visual esthetic of the neighborhood. no on-site consumption is being proposed for the site. patients will be asked to respect neighbors by not consuming in the neighborhood. to prevent underaged access -- >> your time is up. we could ask you back up here for questions. >> i can't -- like one more minute? >> we might ask you up for questions. we want to give every the same amount of time. i'm going to open this up to public comment. i have two speaker cards, matthew hodges and stephen maloy. line up on the side of the room and come on up when you're ready. >> i'm matthew hodges. i'm a resident of district 5,

also a friend of chris kalway's. in support of this project, i feel like he's done his due diligence. it's a great way to activate old empty storefronts in the city and also the people of california have spoken about legalizing cannabis for medical and recreational use. i really enjoyed his reach out to the community letter. i thought it was very thorough and very respectful of what the community is going to be. with that said, i absolutely support this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commission. my name is stephen maloy. i live at 455 fell which is right across the street from the proposed location. i'm part of mercy housing. so i'm the opposite end of your efforts here of density because i'm sure you approved that site so now we are inside of the

site. so, you know, patricia green is right at the end of the block and a block and a half over is hays valley playground. and inside mercy housing we have a little playground. and inside mercy housing we're going to have our own version of a school, a financial empowerment center. i don't think the issue is whether or not cannabis is good or bad. we're not here for that today. is it an appropriate location to have cannabis dispensary? and i think that answer is no. the city of san francisco has many locations that this gentleman can fulfill his destiny and fulfill his dream. i don't think it's appropriate to have it across from my community, many of which are sober members, many of which have children. and i just don't think you can police, as we know, in san francisco the use of cannabis.

it will occur like it occurs everywhere else in the city. from my standpoint and the community that you say no and help him find a better location for his needs. >> thank you. next speaker, please. come on up. >> my name is ryan gill bert. i'm also a resident of hays valley. i have a 1-year-old child that i actually take to patricia green almost every day. i can tell you there are a lot of other problems in the area that you deal with. i think dispensaries of today are a retail-specific thing. i don't see it pouring out into the neighborhood. it's like saying i don't want to be across from a bar where they sell alcohol. that storefront has been vacant and virtually useless for a long time. it's a hard block. it's on fell street.

there's a lot of car traffic. you don't get good retail presence unless people are going for a specific destination. i feel this is good for that. i don't see any problem with it in the neighborhood. >> thank you. anyone else in the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. project sponsor, i was going to ask you to finish. i know you were getting to the stuff about what kind of mitigations were you planning to meld into the neighborhood. >> i'm sorry, what did you say? >> how do you plan to assimilate yourself into the community and if there are some measures you are taking. >> absolutely. my presentation did have a very detailed security plan in our community outreach program. so i've been a member of the hays valley community for a long time. i know a lot of the fellow

business owners in the neighborhood. i want to stay active and make sure our impact on the neighborhood is positive. i believe there are a lot of issues facing the community that we can help with, neighborhood ar arts beautification projects. we're going to don't a part of the our profits to charities. we're going to sponsor arts projects and provide meaningful opportunities for residents. i want to do everything i can to make this business a very positive and beneficial member of the community. >> thanks very much. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> i had a question for the project sponsor. in your oral presentation, you talked that your -- >> no, i don't think i got to that. i think i was just about to get

to the point. to mitigate nuisances from our side, we are not proposing any on-site consumption. we're thinking about having outward delivery so there won't be any traffic issues. i think the consumption issue is one that san francisco has to solve as a hole. if we're able to design a consumption lounge in the space later on, i think it's a total different hearing and a different process with the department of public health. but if it's something the neighborhood and community wanted us to have, i would be open to having it. at this time, i don't think it's necessary in this location. i think the restraints on getting it approved would delay the project to a degree that would not make it financially feasible to do so at this time. >> is it residential units up above? >> we have a three-storey mixed-use commercial and residential building. neighbors in the building have been very supportive of the project. >> thank you. >> we had letters of support

coming from them as well. >> commissioner dyaman. >> i have a question for staff. they're not proposing a consumption, but you're also not proposing limiting consumption. so that means if they do want to do consumption, it doesn't come back here, it goes to d.p.h. for approval? >> that is correct. consumption can be approved at a later date with an accessory use. that does not come to planning department. >> do those later approvals come with the opportunity for notice and hearing if the neighbors are concerned about consumption? >> i believe the office of cannabis has some noticing requirements for that, but not planning departments. >> right, but notice and hearing. >> i do not believe that there is a hearing. >> so the notice is just -- >> the office of cannabis has some good neighbor policies. i think that might -- like, reaching out to the neighborhood

and holding community meetings may be required for the on-site consumption, but no public hearing. >> we were going to say the commission, if they chose, could add a condition of approval requiring either a public hearing or a mandatory discretionary review if they add consumption in the future as part of the approval of this one. >> commissioner johnson. >> can i have the project sponsor come up. you heard in public comment that there is a member of the community who is both concerned with your presence in the neighborhood and specifically a playground nearby and also sober housing and other things nearby. so when you talk about integrating yourself into the community, can you respond a little bit to those concerns about -- >> sure, absolutely. so hays valley, i did some demographic research and i was kind of surprised to find our

population has doubled in the last 10 years, but the population of children has declined in the community. there are only 5% of the households in hays valley that have children. there are these playgrounds nearby. like ryan gillbert said, there are other issues that face these playgrounds that are more serious. i raised a child in san francisco. i never had a problem with her going to playgrounds. i never saw anyone smoking cannabis in that playground. i never had a problem with my daughter walking to these playgrounds. i was never concerned about cannabis smoking in general for her, but i was concerned about the homeless issue, things like that. the vacant storefront issue is a bad one in our city and it creates safety issues as well. to be a better member of the community, i can understand that if you move into a new house and

you think a dispensary across the street might not be good for your community, but you need to look at all the positive benefits it does create and the negative impact of having a vacant storefront from any housing development, it's a terrible psychological impact to walk by and see this blight on the neighborhood. this particular building takes up half a block of laguna street. it needs to be painted. it needs to be renovated and restored. with the rid ler, our neighboring business, an upskate champagne bar, we are going to beautify it with plants and green the space. i grew up in detroit where there are a ton of vacant spaces and abandonment. that had a noticeable impact on the way i viewed cities.

>> something to consider as you consider moving into this community working with local non-profit organizations and others to do education so that you are benefitting the folks who are there and adjacent. >> absolutely. so i think one of the things our arts project is going to focus on is creating a program for kids that are in transitional housing so they have a way to express their emotions and thoughts through art. so it's one of the things that i hope to be able to head up. thank you so much. >> commissioner dyman. >> i'm in favor. i support the action. i'm a little anxious about the on-site consumption. he's saying he's not going to do it but he could go and do it. it sounds like there wouldn't be a public hearing. especially because there's

residents above, that i would want to add a condition that if he wants to propose on-site consumption, it could come back. i would be open to having it come back here for any type of on-site consumption. >> just to clarify, i've gotten some updates from staff. a building permit would be required for on-site consumption if they so chose in the future. and the commission does have the authority to request a mandatory d.r. of that building permit if it happened in the future. there is so mechanism for the commission to kind of get additional review if they so -- if the applicant chose to go in that path. >> would we be approving that as a condition now saying if they want to do on-site consumption as part of the building permit -- >> the last part of your packet

is about on-site consumption, we can modify that. >> i think it's all three types. we could modify that last condition. >> i would move to approve that subject to the condition. >> i would not be as supportive of on-site consumption. >> commissioners, there is a motion that is seconded to approve this with conditions, amending the last condition that it come back before you if on-site consumption is applied for. [roll call vote]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner fung voting against. [ applause ].

>> commissioners, that will place us on item 14 for case number 2019-016523cua, 313 ivy street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> bridget hicks again, planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for change of use from a bar to a cannabis retail use. this is also located in the hays neighborhood district which requires a zoning change for this use. this is located between gough and octavia. the bar is currently doing business as thick and thistle.

currently there are no cannabis establishments in the hays valley aside from what we just approved. the nearest one is over a half-mile away. the project sponsors are designing the space to have a lobby and check point at the front. based on neighborhood contacts, the department does not recommend any additional conditions. in this case, the sponsor's intent to request a type a or type b consumption permit at a later date. in accordance with article 8a of the health code and department of cannabis regulations. the support letters reference the benefits of a safe space for

cannabis sale and consumption. there are letters noting the increased vehicle traffic and the potential for increased drug use and crime on ivy street. the sponsor has held a community meeting in accordance with the office of cannabis on january 18.

>> when i heard about the equity program, i was excited about the possibility for me to open a small business. i now have the opportunity to show the community and the youth that i work with that i can be a small business owner in an industry that we were once prosecuted for participating in. i was also fortunate that people were running a small wine bar in the hayes valley. they were open for me to replacing the wine bar with a cannabis dispensary and both of them agreed to be my business partners. i know with my experience working for my family's a scream shop, my understanding of the cannabis industry and my commitment to the local -- my

family's ice cream shop, my understanding of the cannabis industry and my equipment to the local community gives me a benefit. i am confident that it will work and have a positive impact not only on me personally, but also on the community, as all three of us are committed to give back to our city. thank you for your support. i would like to introduce my partner, angel. >> thank you. hello, commissioners. i have come before you on the prior cases. my family have been in san francisco for three generations. he worked the original joe's on taylor street. we have been friends for almost two decades and our friendship runs deep. we opened up our first business together almost seven years ago.

a tiny wine bar not far from the community center where there is the youth tennis program in the western edition. we have and always will be part of this neighborhood and asked -- and this community. i have been part of the neighborhood as an active board member and i have served on various committees over the past six years. when we open the wine bar, we struggle through the permitting process to get opened and dealt with years of construction. well fake and fissile has many small business success, it is still challenging -- well for and thistle -- [indiscernible] we believe transitioning to a cannabis retail is not only a natural extension of our business experience, but also will ensure the location will have a successful small business we are excited about the opportunity to offer the neighborhood a place where they can access a carefully curated

selection of safe, regulated, lab tested cannabis grown by small farmers and others. we hold ourselves to the highest standards of trying to be operators of small business. [indiscernible] we will run our new space with the dedication and passion for the industry and the community and the city. we hope you will support our project. thank you for your time. >> i have one or two speaker cards. anyone else is welcome to come up for public comment. please line up on the screen inside of the room and come up when you are ready.