welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote meeting for june 18, 2020. as i have done in the past and will be doing into the conceivable future, i would like to enter the following into the record. due to the health emergency, the

commission chamber and city hall is closed. further more, the mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspending select laws to commissions and making it possible to hold hearings remotely. the planning commission received authorization to reconvene remotely through tend of the shelter in place. the authorization directs the commission to prioritize consideration of action items pertaining to informing, housing and -- to infrastructure, housing and small businesses. i am requesting everyone's patience in advance. it is not perfect and at times may appear clumsy. do not hit any controls that may affect other participants. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this live and we will receive public comment or each

item. sfg is forecast broadcasting and streaming the toll free number across the bottom of the screen. comment opportunities are available via phone by calling 888-273-3658 and entering access code 310-7452. press pound and pound again. once you are connected and when the public comment is up for that item, you will be entered into the queue. once the public comment portion is opened for the item you are interested in submitting testimony, press 1, then 0 to be added into the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes. when you have 30 second, you will hear a chime. when the allotted time is reached, i will direct the staff to take the next person queued

to speak. speak clearly and slowly, call from a quiet location and mute the volume on your television or computer. at this time i would like to take role. [roll call] we expect commissions chan and johnson to both be absent today. first on the agenda is items proposed to continuance and proposed to continue to july 9, 2020. item 20, 2018-002124cua at 54 4th street is prosed to go to july 30, 2020.

item 3, 2018-001088 cua is proposed for an indefinite continuance. and item four, case 2019-022295drp at 600 indiana street is discretionary and item five case number 2020-001942cua at 1699 van ness avenue, conditional use authorization have both been withdrawn. further, commissioner, under your regular calendar, item 13, 1566 through through 1568 is proposed to august 20, 2020 of the discretionary review cal, item 172017-002545drp

discretionary proposed to july 16, 2020 continuance. and items 19a and b for 2010-0 # o 9964drp and var and 526-530 lombard street, discretionary and variances are proposed for continuance to september 10, 2020. these requests come from the project sponsor or mutually agreed upon in order to continue working with neighbors. i have no other items to propose for continuance. we should open public comment.

operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: i want to thank you for continuing the 526 lombard street project which we and about two dozen neighbors and the telegraph association strongly oppose. your continuance will give dpw a chance to re-examine and to clarify if the alley is indeed to be legally built up to the stockton elevation which is a difference of 11 feet. we do not believe so.

we would also like to invite you to visit the alley some day. thank you very much. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi, commissioners. the first is number one on the agenda and that is 350 to 352 san jose avenue. and i believe that a continuance longer continuance s warranted on this one. it is proposed for july 9, but the 311 -- the new 31 # 1 notification that just went out doesn't expire until july 6 and it is anticipated that several

applications and challenges will be file and it doesn't seem possible to be viewed and responded to within three days. so i would suggest that be continued to sometime later in the summer. and i also wanted to speak on item 19a and b for 526 and 530 lombard street. thank you for continuing that. the project remains to be reviewed and with the decision rendered and the whole access from fielding is unclear and we appreciate the continuance on that. thank you very much. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> thank you, commissioners. the item is now -- the matter is now before you.

do i hear a motion? >> move to continue as specified. >> thank you, commissioners. commissioner diamond. [roll cal] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. placing us under the consent calendar, all matters listed here -- oh, excuse me. i apologize. the system zoning administrator could opine on the continuance of item 19b is it?

>> we will continue with the public hearing to september 10. thank you. very good. now we are under your consent calendar, commissioners. all matters under the consent calendar are considered to be routine and there will be no specific discussion unless an and will be at a separate hearing and from 14700 and conditional use and item 7, with discretionary review. i understand it is uncommon for our d.r. item to be on consent, but it is simply to accept the agreed upon conditions by both

parties. we should go to public comment. >> a this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number and press 1 and 0 to get into the queue. do we have -- >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: i am here to testify on item 14. >> okay. item 14 will come up later in the hearing. and you can press 1 and 0 to enter the queue again. right now we are taking comment on items on the consent calendar. >> caller: thank you.

>> you have zero questions remaining. >> secretary: very good, commissioners. the mater is now before you. do i hear a motion? move to approve. >> [roll call vote on consent calendar] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. and that places us under commission matters, item 8, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for june 4, 2020. we should take public comment.

[instructions] again, members of the public f you wish to speak to the minutes, now is your opportunity to press 1 and 0 to get into the queue. >> no callers. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the mater is now before you. >> commissioner diamond. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call vote] >> so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and placing us on item 9, commission comments and questions.

>> a seeing no comments or questions, commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item 10, director's announcements. >> jonas, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to bring one item to your attention in case you didn't hear about it, the mayor proposed an initiative ordinance that will be on the ballot on november 3 that makes changes to our commercial destruct and zoning controls and procedures. so it does a host of things, but three i wanted to note. one rain showers us to act within -- actually, it is targeted and approved for act on the items within 30 days when they are submitted to the city. it eliminates neighborhood notification for principally permitted uses in some corridors. and then it converts some uses from conditionally -- from conditional uses to principally

permitted arts activities, social services and general entertainment, movie theater, community fall fails, restaurants, and limited restaurants. because it is a ballot initiative, we can only provide factual information to you and the public and we will work with the city attorney to the extent we have a summary of the ordinance to submit to you and pass along the full text as well. thank you. that concludes my report. jonas, you are on mute. >> secretary: thank you. seeing no questions for the director, we can move on to item 11, review of past events of board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals, but the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron star, this week the land use committee was cancel sod nothing on the agenda for us this week. and at the full board this week, the re-authorization of the extension fee waiver for authorizing from supervisors mar and mandelman passed the second read. and the conditional use appeal for 95 norhat street was continued. and the mayor's initiative but the director beat me to that report, and did a fairly good job of summarizing the main points. i am available for more questions if you would like. >> secretary: seeing no questions, commissioners, as stated, there is no report from the board of appeals. but the historic preservation commission did resume its hearing schedule yesterday after a slight hiatus where they

adopted a motion directing staff to draft the resolution supporting the department's efforts regarding racial and social equity similar to what you have already done, so that will be agendaized on their july 1 hearing. they did adopt a letter supporting the legacy business program that was set to -- the mayor shue, among other folk, they acted on the 22nd street project which you considered and made amendments to which rain showered it to go back to the historic preservation commission, and they approved it with conditions, and then they took -- they review and commented on the 550othello street draft environmental impact report which will be coming before you, i believe, next week. that's all i have from the historic preservation commission, and seeing no

questions related to it, we can move on to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda item. with respect to agenda item, you opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. why don't we go ahead and take public comment. again, members of the public. this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number and press 1 and then 0 to get into the queue. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. this is kathrin howard. yt san francisco chronicle" ran an investigative stud bihow san francisco bypassed states toxic sites law and describes actions that the city took under the california environmental quality act and ceqa. it states the city considered cat goral exemptions for at least a dozen projects that were located on state identified toxic waste sites and that the city exempted. nine of the projects were the state's public environmental review process. i am very concerned about how this misuse of ceqa might be supported by the new local ceqa ordinance and that standard environmental requirements. if the s.e.r. ordinance is implemented and the result will be that even more projects could be made exempt from public review under ceqa. ceqa was enacted to require public agencies to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. the environmental review process has involved into a democratic

process by which the public can give impact to government agencies and policies and by limiting the environmental reviews proposed to s.e.r. ordinance would have a negative impact on transparency and public participation in the ceqa process. of course, we all hope that past abuses of the ceqa process outlined in the chronicle investigative study are not predictive of future problems. but i am concerned that in the wrong hands, the s.e.r. ordinance could open their way for more abuse of the public's trust in the future. and as you commissioners are aware, the ordinance will be reviewed at your commission on july 30. i encourage you and the listening public to read the june 7 "san francisco chronicle" article and please reconsider any further weakening of the ceqa process in san francisco. thank you very much.

>> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia chutish. good afternoon to you all. i want to talk about the link i see between the demos and speculation. a project that had 311 and no d.i.r. that expired back in april and is now going through the site permit thing with the d.b.i. anyway, the project exceeded the threshold of the demo calcs in two of the four and the third was one was very close. and certainly if the calcs has been adjusted at least once in the past 11 years as allowed by the code in 317b, 2d and specified by the commission to the staff back in march 26, 2009, this spec project would have been reviewed differently and i guess i want to tell you why this is a spec project and it says because it's a spec

project because it is entitlement is now for sale. and even though the permit hasn't been issued yet. it sold for $1.365 back in 2018. and then now asking $1.895. so to me that's speculation. and the other part that is a little distressing is it's supposed to have two units but they are marketing it as could be used as one unit. so i mean you can't control how they market things, but that is what goes on when we have these situations. and the staff really did look at the demo calcs close and checked them and had to change them twice actually. and existing house is actually quite nice and livable. it is a little disturbing to think it will go away. the fourth item i want to mention is that the permit is really undervalued.

it is only at $400,000. so those are all the things if you want to exwhich it out. it is 565 29th street and it is illustrative in a micro way of the macro problem that goes on with the demo calcs and not being adjusted for the last 11 years. thanks very much. everybody take good care, take safe, stay well. bye-bye. >> secretary: very good, commissioners. seeing no additional public comment, we will move on to the regular calendar for item 12. 2014.1441gpr, mission bay south redevelopment plan amendments. these are general plan conformity findings and adoption and is staff prepared to present? >> yes.

good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. i am ed synder from department sfaf and before you are the findings of the consistency with general plan for proposed amendments to the mission bay south redevelopment plan to enable a new golden state warriors mixed use hotel project. we should note at the very top is that the actual approval of the project is not before you. the only action that you are going to need to take or to make is finding general plan findings and consistency. after today's presentation, i will provide a background of the mission stay both south redevelopment, and briefly describe the hotel project and the associated community benefits and describe the amendments and we will tell you how staff believes the amendments are consistent with the general plan. mission bay south is one of two mission bay redevelopment

project areas. they are generally located south of soma, north of dog patch and east of showplace petrero. the redevelopment plans were established in 1998 under california redevelopment law. as redevelopment project areas, the guiding land use and zoning is governed by the redevelopment plans and not by the planning code. similarly as redevelopment project areas, the office of community investment and infrastructure or oci, and the commission are largely responsible for land use decisions and individual developments. together the two plans em compass 303 acres and call for the development of 6500 dwelling units of which 29% would be affordable. roughly 5 million square feet of

commercial. 560,000 square feet of retail and all new streets and blocks. 49 acres of pash parks and open space and the ucsf campus and hospital. the golden state warriors applied to construct a new hotel mixed use project at the site of the center on the northeast corner. i believe the warriors will give you an in-depth description of this, but i will describe it just very briefly to provide context as proposed the hotel project would include 129 hotel rooms, 21 dwelling units and associated retail, banquet center and fitness center and other amen tis and would be 160 feet tall exclusive to the upper story penthouse and above the space and 240 feet long. the project would feature lobbies along warriors way and terry francois along the east

and along with enhanced pedestrian steps up to the internal pedestrian deck. forgs force as proposed, the hotel project would include -- excuse me. it should be noted that the development within mission bay south, the project sponsor, the warriors, are required to contribute to the building of infrastructure and open space and affordable housing along with a wide variety of community benefits. this is through the ownership participation agreement which is similar to a development agreement. they also are responsible for paying into the transit and sustainability fee, the child care fee, and public art. currently this project in mission bay would not otherwise be required to other affordable housing requirements such as those that are similar to the planning code dmr and jobs linkage housing. however, project sponsor has agreed to pay fees commensurate or greater than to oci for the creation of additional

affordable housing. in addition t project sponsor is committing to 175,000 dollars a year for general park maintenance. to enable the development, amendments to the mission bay south redevelopment plan are required and for this subject site this, means allowing a hotel and residential use where is they are currently not allowed. and it also means allocating 5 # a,000 square feet of re-- allocating 55,000 square feet for retail and this will not result in actual increase and in this particular instance 11,000 of that 65,000 represents where they proposed to enclose current open air restaurant seating and the remainder 54,000 represents existing retail at the site, but the way that it was because it was configured, it does not -- that current retail does not have to count towards the cap that is established across mission bay. this amendment would just simply take that exemption out and

allow retail to be counted towards that cap. other amendments to the redevelopment plan and amendments to the mission bay south design for development are also required. the amendments are not before you but are and we did in the staff report for your information. and these amendments include increasing the permitted height from 90 feet to 160 feet. increasing the permitted plan length from 200 feet to 240 feet and adjust, power separation requirements and allow additional space on the roof for recreational amenity. actual approval of the mission bay south redevelopment projects as i have said are not within your jurisdiction, but under ocii and their commission and on may 19, that commission did take several actions that included recruiting the amendments to the redevelopment plan and the o.p.a. and amendments to the

redevelopment and the redevelopment plan amendments and you need to find that the amendments are consistent with the general plan. and planning staff has reviewed the amendments and believe such consistency findings can be made and the project will permit a mixed use residential and project use at a location complimentary to and synergistic with the existing chase center. and the hotel and retail and restaurant uses will add to the vibrancy of the new entertainment hub. further, they are proposed in the context where transit and along robust, open space amenities are provided. the project sponsor has committed to contributing the creation of affordable housing by agrees to pay fees commensurate or greater than what would otherwise be required under the planning code to ocii to create additional affordable housing. this concludes my presentation

and again, we are recommending that you adopt and the associate director is on that is that staff members are also available. i believe the warriors are also ready to make a presentation. commissioners, this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> is the project sponsor available to make a presentation? >> yes, we are. >> very good. and it looks like your slides are up. be aware there is a slight day and just speak to the slides and direct staff to go to next slide. >> thank you. thank you very much, commissioners, for having us today.

i am peter brian, vice president of construction and development with the golden state warrior. before you the proposed project as you heard from matt, we are the project sponsor and have partnered with the hotel operator and management partner and s.h. hotels and resort. they will operate the property under the one hotel brand which we believe is very well suited not just for san francisco and also in association with the golden state warrior and supporting the local community will bring a much needed partnership. slide two, please. as matt described a brief overview of the land use project and the project consists of 129

hotel rooms and 21 prez denial units and approximately 12,000 square feet of leasable space. slide three please. we focused on insuring that the proposed project does not have any negative path to current circulation and in or around the project site. and you can see all pedestrian paths and travel and bicycle paths of travel and vehicular paths do not change with this and will utilize the existing garage, loading dock and staircases that connect to future bay front park to the east and warriors way and the terminal privilege to the knot will remain and in some cases be enhanced as part of the development.

what you see is a brief idea of how the project will pr interact with the surrounding area and focus now on the ground level. the area in blue is the lobby entrance and one of the goals we found with the opening and operates of chase center is trying to find ways to enhance the activity and liveliness along warriors way. we believe placing the hotel entrance along warriors way will go a long way to achieving that gold, and in addition, the area in the right corner is the pinkish-coral caller is one of the anchor restaurants proposed for the project at the intersection of warrior way and terry francois boulevard to provide next over to pay front park. slide five please. this level and what you see as level 200 is the level that

intersects with the current plaza and esplanade level. there is a cafe terrace and a lobby entrance on this level and access into the building and also the majority of our meeting room function as it interacts and along with the ballroom space and the two-story height to the level. slide six. this is amenity level at the top of the podium. -- on the right, what you see here is a generous terrace area associated with a restaurant and in addition to several hotel rooms in the floor and the additional spa and futness program. slide 7 please.

there has been extensive outreach to date and well in advance of the hearing that we participated in on may 19 in front of the commission and the community investment and infrastructure that began in late 2019 with attending the mission bay community advisory committee and presenting the project and actions that would be taken by the commission on community and investment infrastructure and neighborhood meetings with several neighborhood groups and businesses. >> slide 8 please. and what you see here is an aerial rendering of the proposed project with a downtown skyline in the background and we have designed the project who will be

enjoying bay front park with the lowest al activations to the 160 foot height limit consistent with the two office towers that exist on the site and within the rest of mission bay. i thank you very much, commissioners, for the time. we will address any questions. awe thank you. it sounds like that concludes the project sponsor's presentation. we should take public comment. you conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> secretary: this is your opportunity to press 1 and zero into the queue.

do we have -- >> no calls. >> very good. commissioners, that concludes the public comment hearing. the mater is now before you. >> we do have some now. >> okay. we should take that caller. >> you have three questions remaining. >> is this commentary or a question part of this? >> there are no questions. this is public comment. >> okay. and my name is mike mcdonegal and i live in madrone which is a block away from the proposed hotel. my wife and i moved here in 2012 and we expected a lot of change and we've had it. for the most part it's been

great and appreciate everything that you have done to move it that way. the hotel is definitely needed in that area. and i think what we are talking about here is the warriors and they have done a fantastic job from the who are an excellent neighbor and addressed every issue quickly and with the traffic and with the neighborhood is much safer and never did feel unsafe, but the fears presented before it and never materialized like the traffic in front. as for the whole town, i have talked to at least 30 to 35 people in the building here and

every single person i spoke with is in favor to have hotel. so again, we know what to expect with the warriors doing the project. if anything comes up, they will address it and i am confident and they demonstrated how they will respond. findly, the chase center will be the crown jewel and look forward to this project being completed. thank you. >> you have three questions

remaining. >> my question is for a different agenda item. i apologize. >> i am in support of this project and they have done an amazing job at presenting this project to make a huge, positive impact so i am personally looking forward to it and with the support for warriors are a great organization and a with the call to be built.

>> i am the secretary treasurer of the san francisco building and construction trades council here in support of this project and the warriors have been great partners with working men and women in san francisco and the amount of outreach and thought that has gone into another piece of the project which is hotel and i want to be on record as saying that the building and construction trades council very adamantly asks you to move this forward. thank you so much. >> very good, commissioners. that will conclude the public comment. the mater is now before you. >> let me start off by making a couple of comments to the warriors owner ship, i would

like to thank them again for assimilating into the community since before coming to oakland and the warriors just as an organization have not just met but received any guidelines and golds through the city and with the city and the work force components involving apprenticeship and training programs and was on report as with hotels, we do like to see the support and the operation of operating them from there on. and am confidence that the warriors will come again and i like how the hotel starts in short and increases in height

away from the waterfront and respects to top skyline on the frot with the other buildings. in support today and would like to hear from commissioner moore. >> very excited to see this project materializing and the exciting setting of chase center. i would be remissed if i didn't ask a question based on a letter that came in around 11:00 and sent by the buena neighborhood consortium and i am asking mr. synder and any representative from ocii and our planning group and he respectfully rejects thinking inadequate findings regarding ceqa relative to to the entire project. could somebody please explain to

the commission to background to that particular question? i am sure you have seen the et willer. it is a four-page letter and i am something will please respond and guide us there u an answer. >> are you muted possibly? >> i am available. i was hoping someone from perhaps environmental planning could start addressing that question specifically. >> yes. can you hear me? >> sorry. >> just for a little bit of background, this is an ocii addendum that ocii is the lead agency under ceqa and the planning department was helping

with the addendum as a consultant to the addendum. for this project we were acting as the responsibly agency and relying on the office of community investment and infrastructure e.i.r. addendum because they had their own environmental review. i would ask jose campos if he is available to explain further. let's see if he is on the line. >> are you with us? >> yes, i am. >> hello, commissioners. the manager of planning and the question with respect to ocii's role as a lead agency and it is true as is explained the

addendum is the addendum to the events center and e.i.r. and golden state warrior event center e.i.r. which was the e.i.r. certified and published tli ocii. planning department is the responsible act agency and we had the hearing on may 19 that was noted and following various notices and in mission bay and south project area.

and so if there are specific questions and with respect to the analysis and how we conduct our outreach and to post the addendum, i am here as well. >> mr. campos, are you aware of the content of the letter sent this morning? i anticipated you had done all the work ahead of time. it sounds as if his group was not notified and that is for you to determine and i will forward the letter and you can speak with him directly. >> yes, i am aware of the letter and just received it right before the hearing start and i have begun to review it.

force i will be happy to reach out and the that are prior to hearings and to this hearing and the actual workshop and there have been more than one hearing at our commission but also several meetings regarding this item. >> and hopefully that can be sorted out, i am in full support of what is in front of us. thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> i want to follow-up a little bit more on the content of the letter. he raised two specific questions and i am hopeful someone on

staff can address those. one is he questioned the use of an i an addendum for the project and thought it was too significant a project and can you address why this is the appropriate project for the retail and the hotel? and second he questioned whether an addendum is appropriate and to address that as well. awe thank you, jonas. and joy, i think you as staff and commission and with the

environmental planning and response to commissioner diamond's questions and i would be happy to help and support any information that is needed as well. >> thank you for having us. and and with the lead agency and when a project is changed and the e.i.r. is certified previously an it was the underlying warriors and in 2015 and we have to do an analysis on whether we have to find that the new modification would not

significantly increase with the significant effect and if the conditions have not changed so much so and that it would deem the raishgs e.i.r. no longer valid. the covid-19 pan dem sick not something we can predict in the documents and in general when we look at revised project and we have to insure that the e.i.r. impacts are no worse than we had already closed and we don't have to add new mitigation measures. so most of you weren't here yet and certifieded in e.i.r. in 2015 and there was an appeal

filed on the e.i.r. to the board of supervisors and it was uphold. and there was a lawsuit filed on the e.i.r. and it was since then upheld. this is certified document that we can share off of under ceqa and is what we used to do this all the time. so if i understood what you said correctly and the particular challenges raised in the letter and retail is not an issue that justified any document other than the addendum because it is not new retail and how you are controlling the -- and how you are categorizing the retail. is that correct? >> we believe so. it is a change in land use analyzed under the e.i.r., but the change would have to analyze the delta between the underlying

e.i.r. and the new project and we did technical studies on wind, shadow, transportation, and went through all the 18 topics and found there would be no new impacts. there would still be impacts related to transportation just like we had disclosed in the e.i.r., but not anything nearly to the point where we have to prepare a new supplemental environmental impact report. >> commissioner: okay. and maybe this is a question for ocui, and if i understood correctly, the overall number of hotel rooms is not -- it is no greater than what was analyzed originally. it will now be on two parcels rather than the original 500 unit hotel that had been proposed which ended up being built at a much smaller level. can you address that?

>> yeah, with respect to the number of hotel room, we are adding based on the prior change to the plan, so originally there was 500 -- well, the plan call for 500 on mission bay south block one. and that number has been reduced. by then it allowed for residential to be built on the portion of block one that would haven't hotel. there is both residential and hotel on block one. and so the plan was very specific to the hotel and uses would be on block one and so with this plan amendment and the addendum that we published, we're basically now saying that those hotel rooms will be located on the golden state warriors event site and we are

actually adding a variance and there is a variance with more residential and a share yans with no residential and we are adding that as well. >> the analysis shows that tim pact of the hotel rooms on blocks 29 and 30 and the combination was the variant and downtown result whether it's traffic or wind or shadows don't result in any new impacts not previously discussed? is that correct? >> that is absolutely true and we did a thorough analysis and review over the last year or so to discover that. yes. >> commissioner: and with respect to the pandemic, i think what i heard staff say was that is temporary and speculative and therefore, don't need to be addressed in the addendum, is that correct? >> and we have wade here and the

transportation and tech and he will be calling in right now. and commissioner diamond, department staff, i don't have anything to add that you just -- i was going to say the same thing. >> commissioner: okay. i am -- thank you for helping to clarify. and the addendum was very thorough and i appreciate your taking the time to walk through it and the issues that were raised by mr. eberling. as i said, i am supportive of the project and i believe it will enhance the area. i was also glad to see that the hospital was supportive of having the hotel in this particular area and in addition to the neighborhood groups and of course, the warriors themselves. i was also really happy to see compliance with all of the affordable housing requirements that are otherwise applicable elsewhere in the city. so i am prepared to approve --

to, i guess, make the general plan consistency findings which is our role, limited role here. and just a question for either ocii and for us the planning and so in terms of adding the addendum in the e.i.r., how many dates is it really -- does it have for the public to respond? or does it need for the public to respond if there is an addendum added on the e.i.r.? >> i can respond to that, if you don't mind, joy. so ocii is the lead agency and ocii is a separate agency from the city. therefore, we don't follow the admin code of san francisco. [please stand by]

-- who receive our noticing and mailing. so we did follow all of those rules and with respect to covid we have also followed all of the city's, you know, published requirements for public noticing during the pandemic. so, yeah, i think that may

answer your question, commissioner. >> thank you. i'm also supportive of this -- of our action for adopting the original plan amendment. i'm not sure -- commissioner diamond earlier, you had a motion -- >> commissioner diamond: i'm prepared to accept to approve. >> second. >> president koppel: commissioner moore, anything else? >> vice-president moore: i wanted to give a brief shoutout that we are not asked to approve any cars for this hotel. i'm very appreciative that they are polling the attitude that has been shown throughout the development and i think that it's laudable. thank you. >> clerk: did you want to hear from mark? >> president koppel: sure, go ahead, mark. >> hello, i think that josé

answered everything perfectly so i was just ready to jump in. but i have nothing more to add unless there are additional questions. >> president koppel: very good, commissioners. >> clerk: there's a motion that is seconded to adopt the general plan findings on that. commissioner diamond? aye. commissioner fung. aye. commissioner imperial. yea. commissioner moore. aye. and commission president koppel? aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes. and we'll be on item 14 -- item 13 was continued. so 14, case number 2019 2019-017309cua at 1700-1702 lombard street. conditional use authorization. is staff prepared to make their presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: very good. the floor is yours.

>> thank you. good afternoon president koppel and the members of the commission. this is laura ajello, the department staff. it's a conditional use authorization to establish a retail cannabis use within the n.c.3 commercial zoning district. the planning code requires conditional use authorization for cannabis retail uses within this district. as you know that n.c.3 districts are along the heavily trafficked thoroughfares that serve as major transit routes. the neighboring businesses include tourist motels, eating and drinking establishments, and personal services. the surrounding zoning is primarily r.m.2 and r.h.3. the subject property is developed with the three-stores missed use building with two ground floor retail spaces. and the proposal will merge both

vacant storefronts via the interior tenant improvements with no expansion of the existing building. exterior modifications are limited to removal of one side entry toor, the addition of security cameras, which is are required, and new business signage, which will be under a separate permit. furthermore, on-site consumption of cannabis is not proposed and it is restricted per the draft motion. no tenants will be displaced as a result of this project. the subject site is currently vacant. one tenant's space was most recently occupied by a retail clothing store. previously both units were occupied by a formula retail store. the applicant hosted one neighborhood outreach meeting prior to the submittal of this application. the department received one letter in support of the project, and one email and one voicemail message from neighbors

opposed to the project, which are all noted in the executive summary. after the commission packets were distributed, approximately 10 additional emailed public comments were received in support of this project. these were all mailed directly to president koppel as well. seven emailed comments opposed to the project were also received and these also were sent to all -- or most of the commission members. concerns include proximity to minor. one similar use on lombard street. safety, parking and the thought that this business will neither be well managed or support the neighborhood. and supporters cite the opposite, they believe that the store will be well managed and benefit the neighborhood. and staff requests the a the ap, it meets all applicable notes and it has a mix of goods and

services for the district and it contributes to the economic vitality of the neighborhood by occupying two storefronts that would otherwise remain vacant. this concludes my presentation. i will be available to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, laura. is the project sponsor prepared to submit their presentation? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. >> thank you. my name is (indiscernible) and i'm the project sponsor for this application. first and foremost, this is a social equity minority-owned black dispensary with an african american c.e.o. i find it troubling that not one letter of opposition or support either acknowledges that or have mentioned me by name. they only mention the partner in this venture. johnny and his retail connections were pivotal to

requiring 1700 lombard. could you imagine me, a tall black man, entering the real estate office and asking for a property lease agreement to sell weed? i can guarantee you that i would be shown the door and after i left they'd be like can you believe that guy, he must be on drugs. local governments, realtors, developers, landowners and homeowners have to collaborate in different ways to ensure racial exclusion and dispossession. and that includes the black market, the traditional markets, medical sales and now legal sales. might i add after four years of cannabis sales i have no convictions which for a black man is a miracle within itself. how did i achieve that? well, first, i never smoked on street corners or in public. secondly, i certainly was not going to sell out of my house for the safety of my family and

concern and respect for my neighbors. as such, i have never been a burden to taxpayers due to incarceration. and now public officials and wealthy white americans who have successfully navigated the cannabis industry are creating barriers for ownership to keep african americans from accumulating welt in the billion dollar pot sector in which race and racism are fundamental to the creation of profit and accumulation of wealth. to date, black america is under assault and the streets have erupted in protests because racial inequalities that go far beyond the cannabis plague continue to plague this country like a virus. can this neighborhood tolerate another vacant storefront under the current economic conditions? and the premise would further burden the property landlord with a vacancy tax and continue a pattern of community blight. after extensive research i am only able to identify one

black-owned retail business located in the marina district and that was from an opposition letter. i should be able to shop in a marina i should be well good enough to set up a store there. and so in closing, an african american c.e.o. is needing support from this commission and the committee at large, and that time would be now. i ask the commission to approve this initial use to shape meaningful change for an equal and inclusive path forward. thank you, that's the end of my statement. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, we should take public comment. >> your currency is now in question-and-answer mode to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> clerk: again, the members of the public this is your opportunity to call the 800 number and to enter the access

code and then press 1, 0, to enter the queue. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> caller: can you all hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> caller: thank you. thanks, commissioners. good afternoon, my name is mark herman. i wrote a letter into you and i failed to mention that i live one and a half blocks from this site and upfront i would ask you to keep in mind the quality of these tallies of oppositions and fors because i can assure you that all of the opposition came within a couple blocks of the site. the project sponsor that we've all known is johnny love through this whole process. he owns four bars in san francisco and he's hired a permit expediter and i'm sure that he could get signs from neighbors so i ask you to check the validity of those. i have several points of opposition. first, of all, it's seven blocks

away from this and i have no idea why we need a second dispensary on lombard street in the marina and i'm not opposed to marijuana at all. it just seems way too close. and the difference in these sites is my point number two -- the apogh site has no parking ad it, no metered parking for blocks and blocks and it's all marine and residential parking. so there's cars there 24/7 and there's nowhere for anyone to park for this location except to double park on lombard or octavia street and we think that is going to be unsafe. i'll let someone else talk about the project sponsor. lastly, the proximity to children -- not only a lot of children in the marina, but there's two preschools within 500 feet of this location. normally that would be an exclusion if this was a k-8 -- if they were k-8 facility. it's a precool facility and one on laguna and lombard and one on

grenwich and octavia. which is ladybug child care. and there's a mosconi children's playground a block away. and sherman elementary, which is the only 5-8 falls outside the realm of what is considered too close but i ask you to consider these other locations. this is a main feeder street for fort mason. marijuana is legal in fort mason as far as i know. there's drunken people walking down the street every day and it's a main feeder street to the park where everyone is laying out in the sun on weekends. so now we'll have, you know, another possible enforcement issue for the city as people are walking three blocks from the dispensary to the federal land of fort mason. and i would ask you to consider that. so along with other neighbors i'll ask you to at least look into some things further on this. thank you. >> you have eight questions remaining.

>> caller: hello? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: okay. this is cynthia. and i submitted a letter of opposing two days ago. i live within a half block of 1700 lombard. i respect that this is an -- and i'm japanese-american, actually, and even though i think that, you know, i support minority businesses, in fact, across street is a minority-owned business. my -- my focus is on the children. i'd like to bring up two issues. i think that the previous speaker has already brought up many of my more detailed ones. but my overriding goal for my

discussion right now is to reject this proposal today or to allow an extension for more comments. because my view is that there was not enough community reach out to the families involved. if you look in your executive summary, you mentioned on page 2, mosconi playground and the marina library and marina middle school are also potential sensitive uses. and saying that children could be impacted by the cannabis retail in the location. as the previous speaker said, fort mason it's illegal so let's say that people do care about that and they will be stoned in mosconi playground where all of our children play. and i have a 6-year-old and one in elementary who walks up and down octavia street -- not during covid, of course -- but this is his backyard. it will be the corner cannabis store. and once you approve this conditional use, and the next

tenant will be cannabis and it will keep going. because once you get that approval there's no use changing it. so for the future of the children, and of the families, we are part of the community, even though your notice went about 150 feet, it involves a far greater number of people. based on that, the community reach out for this was poor and non-existent, practically. if you look on your executive summary page 5, item 5 with outreach and comments, there was -- there was a community meeting with the union. the union bridge association and the neighbors and the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site. i live within 300 feet of the site and i spoke to three neighbors and they never received any notice whatsoever.

i question when that meeting and was what type of outreach. if i look on the uploaded documents this whole project started in september. i'm a property owner and our families are property owners here and we understand that you have had time to reach out. >> you have serv seven questions remaining. >> caller: information on the location, i support the propos proposal. >> you have five questions remaining. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? this is david goldman. >> clerk: yes, we can hear you, mr. goldman. >> caller: thank you. i'm the president of the brownie mary democratic cannabis club. and i want to address the concerns raised by previous speakers. there's no evidence in police data in san francisco or for

dispensaries throughout the country that cannabis dispensaries create harm to children in the neighborhood. there's absolutely no evidence about that. and i'm confident regarding the double parking issue that they will -- the owners of this dispensary and the operators will make sure that that doesn't become a problem. as has been the case at the green claus. the same arguments were raised when they had their permit approved and the green claus has kept people from double parking. i am confident that there's going to be no harm to children or the neighbors and there's no research to show any dispensary nast has done so. thank you. >> caller: i'm michael cohen, i'm the secretary of the brownie mary democratic club of san francisco, and i would like to speak up for the owners and the principals in this case and i would stand by them based on their past behavior and

experience. and in running a delivery service. and so i will vouch for them and i look at their record and i think that their record stands on its own. thank you. >> you have six questions remaining. >> caller: hello, my name is dan rosenthal. i'm on the corner from 1700 lombard. and i have three points to make. one is that i believe that the proposed store will significantly increase demand on the scarce parking spaces on the two fronting streets, lombard and octavia. and other adjacent blocks in the immediate neighborhood. cannabis retailing is a high traffic type of business which is very different from the previous tenant at this address for the past several years, a specialty women's dress shop.

a cannabis store will increase the demand on sidewalk space to accommodate people standing in line while waiting to enter the store. and it will significantly increase the demand on the limited parking spaces currently available. apparently the prospective owners already know that there would be an increased demand on parking because, according to an employee of the applicant's company, they plan to require light zone parking spaces in front of the store on lombard and octavia, as soon as they receive approval of the permit. and it will further reduce the parking spaces available for neighborhood residents. from a larger city-wide perspective, i'd like to know what -- how many of these stores the city is going to allow. is there a plan for this type of retail establishment? i ask because as the number of these types of stores increases, the demand on the scarce parking

spaces in the city will also significantly increase. and the number of available parking spaces for residents will significantly decrease. also there's already a cannabis store seven blocks away at 2414 lombard street. is there a limit to the number of cannabis stores in any given neighborhood? what is the plan? thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> caller: hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: we certainly can. >> caller: thank you. my name is christina mcnair and i have a property just a block and a half or so away from the proposed site. and i am like many other callers that i never got any sort of notification at all that this project was underway.

i have to disagree with one of the gentleman that just spoke and said that there's no evidence of children -- of marijuana harming children. but there is -- but you don't need to promote marijuana usage on a highly dense area where children are walking by and promote, you know, the usage of marijuana to kids. there's the main middle school that is there and those kids are constantly walking down chestnut and by octavia to catch the various public transit. so it is going to be a business that is going to be in their face. the preschools are right there. many of these preschools have -- you're thinking of 2-year-old and 3-year-old, but many of the preschools go up to the kindergarten age level and have older siblings walking by. and i also have had numerous incidences in recent weeks with, you know, people walking by and heading to fort mason, you know,

during the shelter-in-place and they've been intoxicated. i don't need to add having a dispensary just up the street from my home and just adding to the situation. i also don't understand why we need a second dispensary when the other one is basically a stone's throw away. and i don't know if there's any sort of non-compete clause in the area or why we need two of the same business within a stone's throw when there should be a diversification of business in the area. i'm not against minority businesses and i'm not against marijuana usage, but i don't think that corner is a proper corner for such a business. that is more of a low usage corner because it's a high traffic and it's bom lombard stt and it's congested and the buses back up there. it's not a right location for such a business. so i just am opposed to it and i'm also questioning why i did not get any information at all

about this at all. i checked my mail, and i am very active with different things that happen in my neighborhood and i'm just opposed primarily for the reasons that i stated but also because i don't think that the community outreach was handled effectively. thank you. >> you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hello? >> clerk: hello, sir? we seem to have lost this person. why don't we go to the next caller and hopefully this person can call back. >> you have three questions remaining. >> caller: my name is patricia boyd. we have 47 nationalities in the

marina district. and we've had several african americans, one a block away. and our organization has had an at-risk program throughout these neighborhoods for african americans for over 30 years and with an 86% of them going to college. my question is, this is ground zero for a dropoff for homeless and those out of the city. and i want to ensure that the rules and the regulations of this permit are enforced. i want to also to ask -- request of you some additional conditions just to make certain that everything is out on the table as it is now. one of them is no after-hour

parties. and another one is no -- they have to follow the rules and regulations of the cannabis laws. number three, there's a law that there's not supposed to be smoking on the streets. it should not be outside the establishment or within i'd say five blocks. and they've done a very good job on this. the hours of operation have not been totally clarified to us. and i would like in the sales to stop at 8:00 at night at the very latest. i -- the outreach was outrageously bad. it was on a day where there were five other neighborhood meetings and many of them were very big meetings. and only three people showed up. i happened to find out about

this and left another meeting and came over. and i wondered if there's a cannabis bar that serves liquor or cannabis, i welcome the business, but i want to make sure that they know that they're going to have to follow the rules and regulations. one thing that has happened to us since several cannabis places have opened up, some illegally, we've had strike. i don't know if this man understands strike. but it's hit our streets and it's very bad and it's called bama and i want to make certain that anything possibly that is sold has got to be legal. i'm tired of having to lasso people and getting them help. that is -- this is our stand at this time. it is close to mosconi park which we have just cleaned up.

and i would like it to stay clean. but i think that -- i think that more -- i'm -- >> clerk: thank you, time is up. >> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hi. my name is kate -- can you hear me? >> clerk: we can, yes. >> caller: thank you for your time and consideration today. i as well live within a couple blocks from the proposed location. and i have known the management team for several years now and i have been a resident for over 25 years. over the years i have seen the lombard area been slow in terms of crime. there's sort of a spike because there's a lot of tourism there so there's that effect. and there was even, like, i mean, this is horrible but there

was a rapist at large in that area. and i have just seen that sort of the end block there has been this. and i think that bringing a retail storefront there would decrease crime and also in proposal they also mentioning that they will clean the street and make sure that the area is really tidy after every shift. so i think that not only will this retail location turn that statistic of crime upside down, but i think it would extend the foot traffic down to the end of the block and actually increase the safety on that part of lombard which for years has been a neglected part of the neighborhood. and i think that due to the location being mid-point to fisherman's wharf and the marina, and i think that it's going to bring in a lot of shoppers from all of these neighborhoods which will also be beneficial to all of the other

smaller owners along the street. i think that that any of you inquire about the management team, they have significant businesses, and they have all been good. and if anyone knows any of those locations, they've been very clean and a positive addition to the neighborhoods that they've been brought into. and i also thank this neighborhood in addition to that have families and also a lot of young professionals like myself. and this type of a retail location would appeal to these types of young professionals because it's such a reputable store and management team. and so i think that, you know, given that johnny is working to clean the neighborhood and the surrounding area, i am for it

and i hope that you agree with me. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hello, i live -- (please stand by)>> clerk: pro

did you want to respond to your hours of operation? you may need to press star-six. >> i'll leave that up to

jeremy. >> yes. we'll propose a 9:00 a.m. closure. can you hear me? am i being heard? >> clerk: yes, you are. >> okay. so yes, we're looking at a 9:00 p.m. closure for that location. we think that's most appropriate for that site. >> clerk: commissioner imperial? clee >> commissioner imperial: i have a question for today.

the testimony was there was no community outreach. how many community outreach have been done? >> we had our initial preapplication outreach meeting, and there was very little response to that -- to that meeting. we met with patricia and leslie, and the other association in the district that was there. as there was so little response, we didn't feel the need to create more meetings for that because, as i said, only three people showed up.

i've spoken with patricia and discussed her concerns and are prepared to address all of her concerns. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i think since there was only one preapplication meeting and for the staff, usually, we see notices go out to the community, but it looks like there are -- the committee would put out some suggestions or issues in terms of parking and security and now that you just hear about the other -- there needs to be some sort of committee meeting in order to address or come to some sort of a resolution in the issues of the community. i also am supportive of our

small different person-of-color owned businesses. and -- [inaudible] >> i can clarify. go ahead. >> yes, no. i am 40% owner and the application, again, is -- owner of the business, and the application, again, this project is made possible by my social equity application, and it would not be on the table if it wasn't for for that.

so the again, i'm making sure that -- people get in fights and bars play music. [inaudible] >> you saw neighbors and discuss these issues and make sure that we have workable solutions to be sure that there aren't parking problems. we're very certain of our security plan and our commitment to keep the surrounding area clean, but there has been some concern about the loitering and the litter and -- excuse me -- the

parking, and we will meet with our neighbors and discuss how we best address that. >> thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? your mic is maybe muted. >> vice president moore: thank you. mr. bronson or mr. park, would you spend a moment on describing your security plan a little bit more in detail as well as are you intending to have a community liaison or phone number where people could voice concerns or observations as you are starting your operation? >> i'll take that, alexis. most definitely, commissioner. the security arrangements are, you know, we are a corner, so we will have cameras on both street frontages and at the main entry, and we will have

security personnel outside from half an hour before opening until half an hour after closing. as you know, anyone seeking to enter a cannabis business needs to present i.d. and be recorded, and we will be following up should anyone violate the rules regarding use of the product in the neighborhood or double parking or anything like that. we've discussed our security arrangements at length. there will always be a cell phone that the manager has in his possession such that they could respond to any neighborhood concerns. we will post that phone number on the exterior of the business for -- for the neighborhood should anything arise that requires our attention. >> vice president moore: thank you for the -- >> yeah, i would like to add,

we're required to have a state permit, and as part of that, we have to submit a security plan, so i'm very well aware of safety protocols. i will add that we have not had any trouble at our business, other than the recent looting that occurred, so we've kind of kept things really tight, and we haven't had any complaints to b.c.c. about our delivery operations, so i'm very well with protocols, and i've been in cannabis a long time, so i go back to legacy operators, and you have my commitment and my pledge that the utmost safety will be taken to protect

the neighborhood, and especially the children, especially. >> vice president moore: thank you for your comments. i am in support of what is here in front of us. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> so staff, could you confirm? i think there is a community liaison condition of approval under item 10, and that's not just for construction, it's for any operation so that any concerns could be raised by thethe liaison for enforcement by the zoning administrator, is that correct? >> yes, commissioner, that is correct. it's a standard condition of the u.a. approval that's in part of any motion. >> okay. then i, too, am in favor of

thand support of this project. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> commissioner diamond: yes. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there is a motion to approve with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. that'll place us on item 15 at 899 columbus avenue, a conditional use approval, and project sponsor, you'll have five minutes for your presentation. >> sponsor, i'll have a brief presentation first. good afternoon, commissioners. michael christiansen, department establish. this is to establish a 743

square foot khanna disretail storefro -- cannabis retail site. the site is developed with a two-story triangular building with one retail space at the ground fluoraoor and one livin space on the second floor.

[inaudible] >> the project is located at the intersection of columbus avenue and lombard street. when factors in the required 600-foot buffer to k-12 schools and other dispensaries, this would be the only cannabis retailer to be allowed in the north beach neighborhood. this is close to a number of facilities including the public library and joe dimggio playground. the proposed establishment is conte conte contextually because it's the only one within 600 feet.

no additional outlets are warranted. this is not a position that the department agrees with, given that the majority of cannabis sales in san francisco are still in the unregulated market, according to the city controller's report. failing to accommodate a regulated market for cannabis does not cause the unregulated market to disappear, additionally, the city has historically approved other outleted in other neighborhoods -- outlets in other neighborhoods. -- to allow the establishment of a cannabis retail use within the north beach neighborhood commercial zoning district. as the project furthers the city's equity goals, meets the city planning code, and activates a vacant storefront, the department recommends approval of the project as

conditioned. >> clerk: project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, we are. can you hear us? >> clerk: we can, and your slides are up. just remember that there is a slight delay if you're following us on this stream via ms teams, so please speak to your slides and direct staff to go to the next slide. >> no problem. hello, commissioners. my name is henry chang, and i'm the c.e.o. of 899 columbus street, and with that, i'll pass it onto the presenter, and

we'll set it up with the slide. >> hi, planning commission of san francisco. i'm very excited to meet with you today. my name is stella doyle, and i am presenting on behalf of -- [inaudible] >> -- who is applying for the conditional use authorization. to give you some background on me, i moved to san francisco almost a decade ago, and i have worked in the planning industry here in california. with me here are henry chan, the owner behind the project, who has worked in the cannabis business for more than a decade. he's an equity applicant and lives here with his partner and two children in chinatown, and his children go to school in north beach. slide 3. our investors --

[inaudible] >> -- through the neighborhood and participating in the meetings. community organizations in support include the north beach neighbors, and others. slide 7. the attendant community meetings resumed and handed out some materials in person. [inaudible] >> slide 8. [inaudible] >> since this was before the covid-19 pandemic, we were able to attend in person. i was able to meet several

business owners actually living in the neighborhood. slide 9. after the pandemic started, we -- [inaudible] >> -- using zoom. a few people joined us, and we

discussed strategies about the new business. we hosted a second open house on saturday, june 13. we collected additional letters of support and met new residents as well as meeting with some residents at the second time. it was wonderful to see familiar faces, and we are really happy to have the support of the community. slide 13. residents and businesses can follow our updates on social media. thank you very much for listening, and please let us know if you have any questions for me. >> president koppel: thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes the sponsor's presentation. we should go to public comment. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: i'll remind members of the public that this is your

opportunity to enter the queue by pressing one and then zero. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> clerk: and through the chair. each member of the public will have two minutes. >> operator: caller, are you on the line? >> hi. i was muted. hi. my name is cynthia, and i am a 14-year san francisco resident and business owner here in san francisco. i wanted to call in for my

support for henry's dispensary. i know a lot of calls are usually due to public safety, and i wanted to just iterate that was a report that was done in 2018 that showed a decrease in crime whenever there is a dispensary that is graded in any city. so in san francisco, there was a decrease in crime by 9%, and then 1% last year, but overall, even in other states, we've seen decreases in crime near dispensaries go down to 17%. i just wanted to call in and show my support. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. this is david browning from the democratic club. henry and stella are doing an exemplary job of getting community support, and again. dispensaries do not lead to problems with the neighborhoods. research shows that, and even in san francisco, we've seen this over and over again, how dispensaries come into neighborhoods, there's opposition, and once they come in, there's no aopposition owners, especially henry and stella, are wonderful. there's no doubt in my mind that henry and stella will run an exemplary operation at columbus and lombard. >> and this is michael cohen again. i had a chance to go over to the canna club last week, talk

with henry and stella, ask them questions. i think this is going to be a very good fit for that block in that neighborhood. i was impressed by their answers to my questions, and i -- i fully support what they have done, and i'll wish them the best in moving forward. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. i am opposed. i live across the street from the dispensary. i don't understand how he qualifies for equity. i'm going to move on because

you only gave me two minutes. do not approve or put off approval for two months. many schools walk their kids right by there every single day two times a day. the dark alley will become a problem right behind the neighborhood. many stores have had to put gates in front of their buildings because of aggressive homeless. they did not give required notice at all as required to neighbors. they only mailed letters. there's no contact that the liaison is required to have. outreach seems to be a problem

with this group. they're taking advantage of only on-line and taking advantage of the covid-19 without neighborhood input. so notice of the state planning for business -- [inaudibl [inaudibl [inaudible] >> -- much better fit that have more traffic and more night life. we need to have real security, not just some kid checking i.d.s at the door. they need to have high quality cameras with a long storage of recording. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hi. my name is aaron mula, and i'm a 20-year resident of san francisco.

i live nearby, and i also work and own a small business nearby. the business that i'm in is tourism. when i'm in the area, i often get asked for cannabis or recommendations, and i will go ahead and have to leave the neighborhood of the north beach area, and that's just one of many reasons. i believe that we support the application for canna club at the columbus street location. not only does it fit with the vibe of the neighborhood in 2020, it's a small business that is viable, and it's also something that will be run with pride and protect the neighborhood, and i hope that we can all support that. thank you very much. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. the matter is now before you.

>> so just similar to my comments on the prior item, i'm in support of this today. anyone have any comments? commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would like to ask why there are no plans attached. normally, we see the layout of the space, where the deliveries come in and so forth. i'm a little concerned that the cover letter has commissioner richards and melgar from a while back. i am concerned about a number of e-mails from the community which somehow make me wonder if the type of community outreach

that is appropriate to that particular neighborhood is done. this is a question because perhaps of the way the information was submitted, there's a little bit missing here, and i'd like to get a few more comments from you, if i may. >> sure, commissioner. so just for kind of broader contact, it's a few stages. the last is where details about things, particularly about security, are handled, because it's that stage that the security plan is submitted, and it is reviewed by the san francisco police department. so it is a little different because normally, the level of detail that the commission would get when they used to

regulate these under the medical cannabis dispensary program was a little bit more, but we were left having to analyze security plans or details about loading in a way that was -- that we're not particularly qualified to answer. i can say, you know, that is why after -- if the commission were to grant approval, a security plan would be reviewed by san francisco police department, and they would provide guidance of cameras and other types of security. other details are regulated under state law, so they are not allowed to deliver product at a period when the store is open for customers. they would need to have product at a period that they are not open to the public state law also provides any product inside the store cannot be visible from outside of the store, which is why you see

things like catalog books or display cabinets that you look down into. i hope that provides some information. >> vice president moore: no, it does not. how is the store laid out to be a store that addresses itself to be on columbus avenue? in most cases, most recently, you took the lead of grant street, and we had an idea of how it's laid out, and i think here, we do not have any plans to have a better understanding of how the space is used. i like the small space, i'm in support of that, but the application is a little bit thin on information that i normally expect to see. >> and the project sponsor may be able to life a little bit more information. i will say that i do think the relatively small size of the space and the fact that it's a triangular space make it

difficult to have spaces in the middle of the store, so their plan is to have display cases along the exterior walls of the triangular space. >> vice president moore: i appreciate the comments. it sounds like you had a drawing of a plan, which makes it easier to view the space. it's just that it's a very thin submittal. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have a question to the project sponsor. i'm wondering -- there was a comment about how it was only on-line, but there were no mailings. and was there also a community meeting where there was a language access -- it seems

this is awful close to chinatown. >> hello, commissioners. this is henry. so for the outreach project, we did 1,000 posters that we posted locally, as well as 100 fliers to invite people to our virtual town hall that we had because of covid-19. and also, when the restrictions got lessened, we actually did two open houses, as well, on two saturdays, and posted the information on our windows, one of which must be open house. so the information to visit us in the virtual town hall, we had the information to visit us, as well. so i'm from hong kong, and i actually speak cantonese, and i don't think language will be a barrier for anyone in the open house.

>> commissioner imperial: okay. and this is my next question, in your open house, it was in your presentation that there will be open events that will be happening in the store, and we're receiving e-mails that i guess when it comes to discussion of events, that there is an issue of noise. how would you address that? >> well, for the open house, we actually have deejays to attract people so people will come in and talk to us, and attract the community so they'll come and talk to us. but if we get approval, we don't plan on having special events. we'll just be doing business. no cannabis will be displayed in the window, a security guard posted outside, and in terms of noise, it will be at a minimum. >> commissioner imperial: okay.

thank you. >> thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: commissioners, i don't know about you, but my package shows floor plans, elevations, and rendering, and the layout of the relatively small space. >> president koppel: i have them, as well. >> vice president moore: thank you so much, commissioner fung. being on the web, i may have missed it, or i didn't see it. could be either way, but i mate note right way, when i saw graphically kind of flyer-type information, which is more info informative, but i did not see the plans. i will check later, but in any event, thank you so much. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yeah. i was checking when commissioner moore made her comments, and i see the floor plans and elevations the last

few pages of the packet, so i'm prepared to approve this project. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. seeing no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0 and places us on item 16 at 760 stannion street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael christiansen with department staff. the project before you would establish a cannabis retail use measuring 1,690 square feet in a space currently used for story in an existing three

story, two-unit residential building. the project does include the establishment of an on-site smoking or vaporizing room. the project -- the department has received a total of 73 comments in support of the application, generally citing support for creating a second cannabis retailer in the upper haight neighborhood and activating a retail space where currently only housing exists. a letter cited concern with trying to enter the store bl k potentially blocking the sidewalk. in response, a condition of approval has been added to address customer queueing as

part of the good neighbor plan. the project proposed to add a type c smoking or vaporizing room. given the standards of article 8-a of the health code, as well as the proximity of the site to golden gate park, the department supports the project being allowed at the site. type c permits smoking or vaporizing of khanna basis products within a designated smoking room with proper permit. the designated smoking room must have a separate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system such that none of the air in the room will be recirculated to any

other part of the cannabis business premises. the air from the designated smoking room but be either directly exhausted to the outdoors by a filltration system that at a minimum takes away all smoke and smell. the designated smoking room must be completely separated from the remainder of the premises by solid partitions or glazing with no openings other than doors, and all door leading to the smoking room must be self-closing. all doors must be installed with a gasket or a sale where the door -- seal where the door meets the stop. the director of public health may also impose other health and safety standards as necessary to ensure compliance

with the section. if the lounge is unable to meet these standards, then the department of public health will not approve the permit. if a site is permitted and is not able to operate consistent with these standards, annual licensing requires that the activity be discontinued until the issue is remedied. if the issue is not remedied, the section leads to penalties of up to $1,000 per day, and any smoking of cannabis at the site would lead to resignation of the permit to operate and lead to the closing of the business. given that the occupants of the residential units have been informed of the project and the proposed consumption activity, the department recommends that type c consumption be permissible here. if the sponsor is unable to

accommodate the necessary venting system, d.p.h. will not approve the project. as the project furthers the city's equity goals, meets the objective standards of the neighborhood plan, the department recommends approval of the project as conditioned. this completes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, michael. is the project sponsor prepared to submit or make their presentation? you may need to press star-six in order to unmute your telephone. project sponsor? >> yes, we are ready.

>> clerk: your slides are up. you have five minutes. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> thank you, michael. next slide, please. do we have five or ten minutes? >> clerk: you have five minutes -- well, less now. you had five minutes. >> thank you so much. to be th

my family, but i made a lot of decisions that were not the best. during that time, i learned to improve, and i learned to grow. i love my city. i didn't always make the best decisions, but i always tried to lead with my heart, you know, and after coming home, i'm in a long stint of learning. i dedicated my life to the community. as you can see, you know, for the last ten years, i've had the opportunity to work with

phenomenal organizations. this project means a lot to me because it will give me an opportunity to show my redemption and show it's not how you start the race, it's how you finish the race, and i'm going to definitely utilize this opportunity to give back to the community to the best of my ability. and i believe that the haight is a perfect place for it. we want to create more jobs for the community because small businesses are really impacted by covid. it's important that we have an equity issue deeply in the community. the whole building is on board. we're dedicated to make sure that the haight knows that we're here for them. we've done the outreach, and we're going to continue to do so. thank you so much, and for the

opportunity to show you how people can give back to the community. and now, i'm going to turn it over to my partner. >> i'm going to focus specifically on a couple of different slides here. my name is joe reese. i'm a cannabis entrepreneur and social equity advocate. i've been assisting damian. next slide. the focus is my work is to really ensure that the resources generated from san francisco's cannabis industry stay local and directly benefit the communities they touch. i really wanted to highlight the importance of activating the vacant space, the community support, and the consumption loun

lounge. i'd like to start with the support for the project. if you could skip all the way to slide 7, please. community engagement has really been paramount to us during this project. matt and marty already run a small business in the neighborhood, and their two children live upstairs from the proposed dispensary. they're commit today run -- committed to running small businesses that benefit it, too, because they're natives too. undaunted by shelter in place, our team's been working very hard, earning support for the project. as you can see in your outreach log packets, we have contacted nearly every merchant in the haight-ashbury and cole valley, and worked with organizations, including the haight-ashbury improvement association, haight-ashbury neighborhood council, and the buena vista neighborhood association. we reached out to sfpd park

station pagano and the mayor's office of housing which oversees the neighboring 730 site. met with supervisor peskin's office and staff from the rec and park department, and only one week ago today, we held a virtual meeting to answer any remaining questions. after many zoom equals, we're proud to say we have support of over two dozen neighbors who have written personal letters, neighboring merchants, burners on haight, the other cannabis dispensary in the neighborhood. >> clerk: if the commissioners have questions, they may call you up at the end of public comment. >> okay. >> clerk: this is the time for public comment. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode.

to summon each question, press one and then zero pro. >> clerk: through the chair, members of the public will have two minutes, and you should press one and then zero to enter the queue. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> hi. my name's william, and i'm a neighborhood, and i will be reading a letter on behalf of mr. marty higgins, who is the owner of the monarch d dispensaries and consumption sites in san francisco. my name is marty, and i am the own of the urbana dispensaries and consumption locations. one of our buildings is a three-unit property with residential units above it, much like the subject property today. we have been operating for four years, and during that time, we have not received one complaint about our consumption lounges.

i firmly believe our lounges provide people a safe place to consume. concerns about odor and noise are things that people state when considering on-site consumption lounges. we have formed great relationships with the bernal heights and richmond communities. we welcome this applicant, and i just want to say that consumption lounges are a social justice issue. it is not just enough to legalize the sale and use of cannabis, people need safe, legalized places to consume it. i cannot consume cannabis on a park, on a sidewalk, in your car, on mass transit, in your home. if you're in state funded

housing or in your apartment because most leases prohibit it. washington, d.c. legalized cannabis sales but did not legalize public consumption, so black people are disproportionately affected by this -- >> clerk: sir, your time is up. >> and i think my time is up. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> good afternoon. my name is andre massenkopf. i'm also an s.f. native who grew up up the hill from the property in question. i'm a former world champion of pin ball and have gotten to know marty, henry, and matthew

through playing pin ball since 2012, so i know them both and how they do business very well. i'd characterize matt and marty as consistently kind and caring people. this is based on my consistent interaction with them in the last seven years and the way they raise their children. they are very professional business owners, but what stands out to me is how they share free gold watch with the community. it has a very fun positive atmosphere, and it's such an oasis to me and many others in the san francisco community. they host many fun pin ball tournaments in the san francisco pin ball league since the end of 2012. because of them and what they do, the local community has a great place to play and be, and

they're wonderful owners, and wonderful people to be around. because of this, i'm sure they'll do a wonderful and conscientious job with the proposed business. i believe in them, and i believe in what they do, so i support them with this project. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. this is david goldman from the browning mary democratic club. i support this project. the owners are exemplars, as evidenced by the previous calls. it's really necessary to understand how necessary it is to have consumption lounges. as previous callers have said, you can't smoke legally in a park, even in an outdoor park that allows tobacco smoking.

we need consumption lounges. when you figure that over 40,000 places in the states allow alcohol consumption and less than 50 for the 45 million people that live in california, for cannabis consumption. i strongly support this problem and ask that they're going to have consumption that will not impact the neighborhood because of excellent filltration systems that all consumption systems in san francisco must have. >> my name is michael cohen, and i just want to say, as a senior in my 70s, the seniors in that neighborhood will now have a place that not just where they can purchase their medicine, but a place where they can actually use their medicine and not have to travel a long distance in order to do this. thank you. i support the request.

thank you. >> operator: you have ten questions remaining. >> hello. my name is daniel, and i'm an advocate and attorney, and i'm in support of this project. one thing we have to remember, that the equity applicant has paid a price that's been severe, and now, it's their turn to get an opportunity to be a part of a cannabis business. the community needs it, the equity applicant needs it, and i would just like to say that the nonequity applicants need to be thankful for all of the equity applicants that are helping them get this permit because they're not able to move forward without the equity applicant. that being said, i think this is a great location, and the fact that they're going to allow on-site consumption is

something that the community needs, like the previous speaker just said prior to this, that you can't smoke in public. so what happens? no, you have to go to a location that allows it, and in this case, they would have it in this location. and again, the other thing i'd like to say, too, the regs -- this is the most regulated industry that anybody can think of. nothing's regulated more than cannabis. the fact that we're worried about, you know, smoke in the air, they actually have to have extra hvac set up for on-site consumption, so you won't even be able to tell that people are smoking in the area. and just with the security and the advertising, it's so regulated, both at the local and state level. in the end, i support this, and i'm very happy for the equity applicant that can get the opportunity to make a difference. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining.

>> hi. i'm nancy, and i'm an 11-year san francisco resident. i'm also a san francisco cannabis equity operator and cannabis consumer. i'm calling in support of this project because we need more dispensaries that are owned by people of color and equity operator, especially someone like damian and his group that are truly community oriented and give back. this is a social justice issue, so i just cannot express enough that we need more businesses like this, and i'm in full support. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith speaking today as a neighbor in the haight-ashbury and cofounder of the

haight-ashbury neighbors for density. i enthusiastically support the dispensary and consumption center. we are really excited to see its owners pursuing this business. moreover, as an urbanist group, we're dedicated to making sure our community is more walkable and liveable, and any time we see any project that will take any use -- in this case, a private garage, and more housing is also fantastic, and active retail space is very welcome in the neighborhood. this is the exact kind of local, transit rich, community-first business that we need. people need a safe, regulated

space that they can consume cannabis after they buy it. there's no room for a tourist who doesn't own a home to consume cannabis in the area, so this lounge will be an important additive to the neighborhood. we really think that this project can help reactivate the stannion corridor and the haight-ashbury more generally. they reached out, were proactive, answered all the questions that we had, and they've got a reputation as responsible and respectful members of the community, and we're confident that this will improve the haight-ashbury. please approve their application. thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining.

>> clerk: is the caller prepared to submit their testimony? hello, caller. let's go to the next person. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> hello. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is matthew henry. [inaudible] -- to go along with the rest of the retail shops on the stanyan corridor. >> clerk: i'm sorry to interrupt you, but are you the owner of the property?

>> yes, i'm the owner of the property. >> clerk: okay. then you should have submitted your comments during the project sponsor's presentation. let's go to the next caller. >> sorry. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> hi, my name is sunshine powers, and i am the vice president of the haight-ashbury merchant association. i just wanted to voice my support of this project. the haight-ashbury association voted this morning to support this project, including the consumption lounge.

i think with this opening, it will help to revitalize the haight as it has been badly affected. it will help the corridor from stanyan to masonic. i would appreciate a consumption lounge inside the haight, especially for the tourists that we are desperately trying to bring back to this neighborhood. if there's anything i could encourage you to do to approve this as soon as possible, i'm happy to do so, and anything we can do to help you approve this as soon as possible, we'd be happy to do that. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> hi there. my name is joe, and i've been a

resident of the upper haight neighborhood for seven years now. in fact, matt and marty are our landlords, and we live directly up stairs from the dispensary and lounge. this is my only hope i've ever had in san francisco, and i feel lucky to have matt and marty as landlords. they've always promoted a family safe space, and we're excited that they're going to build a new business below us. the haight is lucky to have local owners dedicated to raising their kids here. we also 100% support the consumption lounge. matt, marty, and damian have a

great plan, and we have absolutely no concerns about smoke or smell making their way into our apartment, and we are much more likely to smell exhaust from muni buses outside or people smoking cigarettes on the sidewalk. i think the scare tactics about cannabis consumption lounges are based on fear, not fact, and we're happy to live upstairs and have one below us. also, having a dispensary nearby will improve lighting and safety in the neighborhood, and that's huge. i'm happy to support this, and i hope you will, too.

thank you. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> hi. my name is shawn richard. i wanted to say i am a first cannabis social equity applicant approved by this lovely commission that i'm speaking before. i started a nonprofit organization called brothers against guns, and i lost two friends in '95 and '99. i a i'm the owner of a dispensary called burners on haight. when i lost my two other brothers, i adopted damian as my little brother. i've known him for over half of his life. i've worked with him on a number of outreach events that's trying to save and stop the violence in the community. this young man is dedicated,

and he's committed to giving back, and i know that his role and what he's trying to do with these youngsters and live for them is going to be a very powerful effect so that they can grow and be proud of what they're trying to do so they can take their lives to the next level, like damian has. damian has come a long way, and what i see for him, the sky is the limit. i'm proud of seeing him going above and beyond to create these necessary steps to create something wonderful for himself, the kids he works with, and for his own personal use. this will be a great opportunity for damian to be up there on haight street to where -- we are all the marijuana started at. with our support, it will be a beautiful partnership and

marriage that we have, and knowing that he's my little brother, i'm proud and i ask you to support damian and approve this consumption lounge and approve this on the haight street corridor, and it'll be a beautiful thing. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> hello. my name is christian, and i am an owner of a retail business. i am a member of the inner sunset merchants' association. i have a store at 9 and irving, and i have a store most recently on haight street on the ashbury and masonic block. i'm in support of the business that's up for approval now. i've known matt and marty for

years. i've been working with matt also in the custom framing business for years. the way that they create community and support one another in the community is really a model that everyone should look at, i think, from a company that values community and supports the community so much like ours. real really, what they've done is going to continue throughout their new business, and i have no doubt that that business is going to continue to thrive in the haight-ashbury corridor and thank you very much for your time, and look forward to seeing this approval from you guys. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon. i am the owner of the gizar

pub? san francis -- pub in san francisco, and i'm the next-door neighbor of matt and marty. i am fully in support of matt and marty. i've known them since they moved to the neighborhood, i've known them since they moved next door, and i can vouch for their credibility and character. i couldn't have two better neighbors. i'm very impressed with the way they bring up their kids, and i'm more impressed with their work equity. with free gold watch, they had a lot of problems in the beginning, but they did a lot of outreach to the community and give back to the community. i'm listening here, and i don't see any objections whatsoever to this proposal. it's very impressive in the haight-ashbury district. as you know, there are a lot of

different stakeholders here, but it goes to show the outreach and the work that matt and marty have done in canvassing the neighborhood. i don't believe they had to canvas the neighborhood. i believe they could just talk to the neighborhood, explain themselves. people know and see them in the neighborhood. they live, work, play, and spend in the neighborhood. they have a lot of friends, big social network, and i couldn't, as a businessperson, and it's very important to be next door to a business -- i am very, very happy to support them 100%, and i encourage you to approve this permit, to vote matt and marty and damian, and local people. we need more local people, we need more local businesses, and this is what our neighborhood needs now, and all the time.

please approve this. thank you, thank you, commissioners, for your time. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> hi. this is cynthia, 14-year resident of san francisco, and a cannabis entrepreneur. i am in full support of the cannabis dispensary and consumption lounge in the haight-ashbury neighborhood. i think it would be a really safe thing for people to consume indoors instead of outside. it's a much-needed venue in the neighborhood. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> this is brand from the san francisco social club, and i

live three blocks from the proposed dispensary, so this would be the closest one for me, and i am a senior, and i often reflect on what we said earlier, that seniors should have access. i support it, i want you to support it. a couple of points. i've worked with damian, i know damian. no one, and i mean no one in the community has worked harder than damian. secondly, we need consumption. it's important. safe consumption. looks what's happened with the pandemic where people are at home. yes, they're consuming illegally. we need more of it. damian and marty and matt are good neighbors. please support it. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hi.

my name is robert, and i live in north haight. i think that, you know, i've seen how haight-ashbury has been affected by covid-19. i've seen the retail vacancies. there's a sea of empty storefronts, and the neighborhood is just -- there's so little life going on, that any retail that's open is -- is good for the neighborhood. you know, i live a block away, maybe a block and a half away from spark, lower haight. it's completely safe. i see no downsides to having the dispensary so close to me. i think it's great for the neighborhood, so i imagine that this dispensary will, you know, not negatively -- will have a positive impact on

haight-ashbury rather than a negative one, yeah, so thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi. my name is kai baker. i'm the founder of the city east. a nonprofit goal that we have is damian has helped me run the city east and has been a big help with running and helping with kids and putting volunteers together. i'm proud of damian, like, i'm very proud of damian, where he has come from to now, and i 100% would love to 100% approve of the cannabis dispensary. i've seen damian act with kids

in the socioeconomic program. i'm very proud of him, proud of what's going on, and i 100% want to take this to a whole new level for damian, so thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that will conclude the public comment portion of the hearing. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: so commissioners, i know the project sponsor didn't have as much time as they wanted, so i just wanted to ask one or two questions. one, i know you were listing off your community support. if you could just touch on the project support in your community, and anything you want to address as far as the consumption lounge, that would

be okay. >> okay. thank you very much. can you all hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> president koppel: yeah. >> and so we have slide 8. we've garnered a lot of support from the community. as we've said before, a lot of local businesses, burners on haight, who you heard from, the central haight market, parkview market, mario's bar, love on haight, the emporium. haight-ashbury neighbors for density, who you heard in public comment, as well as the haight-ashbury merchants' association who voted this morning at 11:00 to support the project this morning, as well. additionally, we have support from the california music and

culture association, and united cannabis business association. so in all, six local groups, eight merchants, 23 local residents, and 25 personal supporters. >> this is damian posey speaking. i think it's important to highlight that each and every one of those letters had support for consumption lounges. that's a real important thing to me, and i stressed that to my team because i personally know how it is to be hanging out there, to get harassed. you know, sometimes people don't want to smoke around people or anything, but there's no place to go.

it's very important to me, one thing that i'm going to be doing, is the educational piece that i'm going to be doing in the community, educating seniors, youth, everyone, about everything that we're doing. i just want to make sure as part of the outreach of the community, that everybody is safe. that is definitely a priority on my list. >> president koppel: understood. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i just would like to express support for this project. hearing no opposition from residents or anybody else, i think it speaks volumes from the committee outreach that you've done, and also, i really like the fact that you bring out the on-site consumption and the argument for that, as well,

because you know when we are talking about cannabis dispensary, and the truth that it is still illegal to consume it in public spaces, and to have a safe place, especially for residents, seniors, and i believe there will be housing built, it's always important to hear about education and outreach; so thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: very supportive of this application. very thorough, well rounded, and i look forward to seeing you in space and being successful. thank you. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> vice president moore: it's a motion. move to approval.

>> commissioner imperial: second. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm supportive of the retail store. i am not supportive of the consumption lounge. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? sorry about that. >> commissioner diamond: i am supportive of the project, including the consumption lounge. i want to thank staff for the detailed presentation at the beginning, for all of the safeguards that are in place, both before the project is opens and then after the fact, if their problems that aarrive. i am very supportive of the

project. >> clerk: seeing no other commissioner comments, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes 4-1, with commissioner fung voting against. commissioners, that'll place us under your discretionary review calendar. item 17 has been continued, placing us on item 18. is staff prepared to make their presentation? >> i am. >> clerk: i thought you were going to the office? >> i did. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the

commission. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is an initiated request for discretionary review of 2018.1121.6550 to construction a one-story vertical addition horizontal rear addition and alterations to the front facade to an existing two-story single-family home within an rh-1 zoning district. this building is characterized as a c, no historic resource present. there are two d.r. requesters. the first, kristina fisher of 766 duncan, the adjacent neighbor to the west of the proposed project, and patricia

ehland, of 655 duncan, adjacent neighbor to the east. mi miss ehland is concerned that the height and depth of the building will box her in, and that the excavation and subterranean construction will disrupt an underground spring, impacting draining downhill. public comment. to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and six letters in support of the project. the residential design advisory team rereviewed this and found that the building is not articulated to minimize light and privacy impact to adjacent

properties. rdat found that side set backs on the east reasonably articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and privacy, and with these, staff recommends taking a discretionary review to incorporate these modifications. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: is the first d.r. requester prepared to make their presentation?

is the second d.r. requester prepared to make their presentation? you may need to hit star-six to unmute your telephone, and do they have slides to share? >> hello. >> yes, one d.r. requester has slides. >> how do you get on? >> clerk: you are on, ma'am. you have five minutes. >> hello. my name is kristina fisher. i live at 766 duncan street, and thank you for having me. i would like to explain the negative impact that this has on my home. visually, it will change the surrounding homes, but we all understand everybody needs to have more space. however, the effect of having a

three-story, 4,942 square feet directly adjacent to my home will completely affect my sun light, air, quality of life, and completely affect my usability of my outdoor area. it will also immediately devalue my home before, during, and after construction, and the only reason that people are willing to buy homes on this extremely steep hill is because of views on the northside of the block. i am asking several things. i am asking if they will -- first, i'm sorry. i notice, on the set back, they mentioned on page 1 of the application form, that they had no side set backs, in which they said existing no side set back, and in the second, they

said no change. i'm asking if they would keep the west set backside, which is on my side of the house, so i would be able to have more light coming through, as i will be losing an enormous amount of daylight in my house and also on the outside of my home. i'm also asking if they will reduce the height of their floors. they have one floor that's 11 feet and another floor that's 10 feet, and visually, i will be completely blocked out, and i will be in the shade because of the height of their home. those two things are the most important things to me: keep

the west side set back -- and another thing that i noticed was on the second floor, i'd ask that they move it back 8 feet. on that floor, they are exceeding the set back requirements, and if you guys could double-check that, that would be great. >> clerk: is that your presentation? >> that's my presentation. >> clerk: very good, thank you. is the second d.r. requester ready to make their presentation? your slides are already up. >> yes, i am. >> clerk: very good. you have five minutes. >> i'm trying to see the slide. sorry. my name is patricia ehland, and

adjacent at 758 duncan street, on the east side. the reason i have requested this d.r. is i have already lost all my east sun because of a house that was built on my right side about four years ago. so now, by having this massive house built on my west side, this will essentially take all the light away from my house. my house already faces north, so we don't have a lot of sun light. i don't know if people on this hill are aware, but there is a huge spring that runs under this hill, and it pops up in different places on different properties, and as it is, i have standing water all year-long, and mosquitos, and it happens to be on the west side of my property. now if i lose all the remaining west side that i have now --

and this is a little -- so the shadows -- the front casts a very low shadow very early in the day, so now, this spring will never dry.

. . . . the other thing that i would like to address is in reading the information from the owner at 762 duncan, they said that they have made attempts to contact me and that is all completely untrue. the first meeting they sent me a message and this meeting was supposed to take place on pride week in the cafe in the castro. we are almost and to set up a meeting on pride week in the castro? a mile and a half i away? i got that message from miss fi fisher, not the owners. i was not available and they

made no plan to make it more convenient for me. i got a leter from the architect. again, this meeting was on a friday afternoon. i was at work. again, it was in the castro on 769 sanchez, and a mile and a half from here. the third attempt with the response is she tried to talk to me and i walked away. that is completely untrue. i approached her because her ivy has been growing all on the side of my houseened an i have been asking her for months to cut it back and she hasn't. so i approached her outside and said can you please cut it back? yeah, yeah, yeah. do you think you can cut down the trees on the property because that is going to interfere with my project? that is all she said about the

project. no, they have not made any attempts to talk to me or work with me and that is why i am finding that this is not easy for me to do. and i am retire and a widow and i can't afford to have my property damaged in any way. [bell chiming] >> i listened in and that the house be set back to be allowed more sun and socially not have a mud yard and the retaining wall and replaced and supposed to do on this hill. and install sump pumps and need to address and once they flip

the house, and a recourse and go to someone who wants the damage and to entlarj house and it can't be at my expense. and i am asking if they could pull back to get more sun and the water issues are mitigated. >> ma'am, i am going to give you another 10, 15 seconds to wrap up since the project sponsor rudely interrupted you. >> oh, no, that's really my concern. that i need to have more sun and loosening my privacy. and i don't know -- well, what will happen with the water. i know i will have issues. >> thank you, ma'am. >> that concludes your presentation. project sponsor, you have 10 minutes.

>> good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. i am steve williams and i represent the project sponsor and the other members of the team are james stevoy and amy and barry live at 762 duncan with the recent college graduate and amy's father 88-year-old father. and as set forth in the briefs, these are not house flipers and they purchased the house more than 22 years ago in 1997 as newlyweds and the home is quite smell and with 1,028 square feet of condition space and two bedrooms and one bathroom and i i poll jiez for the late brief, but up until just a few days ago we were told by the department that the proposed project was fully code compliant and recommended for approval. and the only exception and the extraordinary circumstance in this case is the sudden and unexplained and the recommendation by the department on the project and a few days ago after giving the full

approval for the past nine or 10 months and through seven or eight different reviews by the department staff. the new recommendation from staff to set back the west side of the project 5 feet on two floors is extremely problematic for the project. and first it's arbitrary and unfair to suddenly change the recommendation right before the hearing. and after given the written approvals and a dozen different reviews and it is not what the process is supposed to look look at all and creates an infeasible envelope and a # a foot set back on the west and when added to the 3 1/2 feet on the east and means 8 1/2 feet of the width of the 25 foot wide lot given to setbacks and that are mn 1/3 of the lot and creates a maximum possible building envelope only 16 1/2 feet wide. it is unheard of and unprecedented in are, h1 zoning. and the 5 foot wide setbacks are huge and devastating and not in

the code and in the guidelines, period. it is unprecedented and there is not a single building that has been remodels or added to and provides setbacks on both sides and includes that neighbor and extended the stairs and decks and without permits and firewalls. and the last-minute changes are being requested to protect illegal and unpermitted construction that is right on the property line. this case is all about views. and the selling point and runs the property on air bnb and providing and the setbacks and the lighting for the area and with the windows that look directly on the decks and have the next slide. and more than two years ago and more than two years ago and and

the department may of 2018 and had a lot of suggestions and cutbacks and setbacks and did not suggest a 5-foot setback and submitted in 2018 and on august 15 of 2019, they received extensive written comments. and written comments to the supplemental brief and in response to comments and senior warned an senior architect and staff architect and august 30, 2019. and at that meeting, they told the project sponsors that the side setbacks on the west side which are now in dispute and fill in the side set babs and agreed that leaving the setbacks would mean severe privacy concerns and doesn't improve the light and no reason to believe the illegal decks that were

built by the neighbor on the west side and to the property line. and this was an issue that was discussed and early on and looked at the exhibit. and a specific note and the setbacks on the west side and filled in and after the august 30 meeting, the plans were finalized and the 311 went out in january 24 -- next slide please. there was a discretionary review filed by the neighbors on both sides and again in early march in preparation for discretionary review and mr. winslow reviewed these projects again and exchanged correspondence with the architect and march 3 and 4 and cut and pasted that correspondence in the supplemental brief at page two, three, and four. what you can see is that mr. winslow wrote to them and actually repeats the r deck

comments that states that the setbacks and the very thing in dispute today can be filled in by the project sponsor. and provided assurances by the architect and the project that fully followed the directions and that was it. and ended up writing a recommendation to this commission on june 4 when this was scheduled just two weeks ago which stated that the recommendation was do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. and i cut and pasted that favorable recommendation on page 4 in the supplemental brief. for reasons unknown just days ago, mr. winslow suddenly changed his mind. and let's go to the next slide please and the large setbacks on the west side. and the new analysis is simply incorrect and the concept of setbacks on the west side and specifically reviewed on repeated occasions and the project was shorter than the

rdat recommendations and the setbacks will continue the invasion of privacy for both parties land not help in that situation for the west side neighbor. and go to the next slide. as we go through this process, every recommendation was adhered to from the rdat over and over. i confirm this by attaching the correspondence in exhibit 10 and 11 through the brief. these were the same issues that were revisit and reviewed by mr. winslow twice. let's go to the next slide please. and the claim by the requesters and using the auto light and are incredible and the buildings know face south on duncan and the extensions are into the rear yard to the north. just about all the shading comes from their own buildings.

we've taken photographs and show ms. fisher's building and slide seven and eight and almost all of the light comes from the ends of the building. there is not a significant amount of light and face more and at this point i will ask the architect who is hopefully on the line to speak up about the impacts of the 5 foot setbacks will have. mr. savoy? >> yes. commissioners, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you very much. my name is james savoy, the architect for the project. i just like to say that i have never had in over 35 years of practice and the planning department and after a year of discussions and meeting revisions and what we thought were approved plans and now asked to make changes that radically change the design and

from the initial project review meeting to the final 311 to middle and we have made design changes that have removed 658 square feet of the project. and if you can continue to the slide to number 11, 12, and especially 13. that would be appreciated. those slides that you will see next are diagrammed to show the extent of the changes that we have made over the past year and especially and goat the third floor picture which i believe is slide 13. and what is being asked to remove from the third floor. that current request by mr. winslow would remove an additional 83 square feet on the top floor. that essentially removes the entire master bathroom from the design. also the proposed bedrooms on this project on the third floor

are not large. basically the two smaller bedrooms are 10 feet by 12 feet and the master bedroom is 14 by 15 feet. and there you have the slide now i believe. and you can see this is essentially the additional notch that mr. winslow would like to create in the project. and it essentially takes out the entire master bathroom. and 83 square feet is equivalent to removing essentially an 8x10 room from this floor. and the only way to do that would be to delete an entire bedroom almost. which at this late stage in the process seems totally unjustified. a few comments in general about how we arrived at this design and place the design in context with the neighborhood. i don't think we will be able to

go to the particular drawing but i have in the architectural set which you were provided a drawing that shows that 40% of the houses on this block already have three stories and over 40% of houses across the street have three stories. we are not setting any precedent at all. excuse me. in terms of different type structure in the neighborhood. there is no discernible pattern for consistency and the mid block open space. >> that concludes your presentation time. and providing two minutes for each member of the public. i will remind members of the public that this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number and press 1 and 0 to enter the queue.

>> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hi. may name is robert and i live in district 5. and quite shocked to hear that the d.r. requester said that this project should not be allowed because lower the property values and i think this is not a good standard except for discretionary review. and we have a dirth of housing in the city and frankly the property values should have nothing to do with the question and i support the project. thank you.

>> caller: hi. i am here to support this project and can i start now? hello? okay. and my name and support of this project and 72 and duncan street and my husband and i have known them for 20 years and went to the school together and went to international school and they have been active parents and volunteering the time and to facilitate tracking activity. and have become close friends and found a loving, caring, generous and compassionate individual toward the family, friends, and a community. we live close to each other and

we have been taking weekly walks for years. we know that amy and barry have been planning this project to allow amy's elderly father to move in with them ever since amy's mother passed away. recently we heard amy and barry describe to us how they have worked with the planning department and to comply with the applicable planning and department requirements. and approved the project. >> and our attempt to take care of them. and have worked for amy and barry and taking action through the project to create a more spacious and comfortable space for amy's elderly faster and approve the project as proposed. thank you very much. >> you have two questions

remaining. >> i am a resident of san francisco, 30 years. i know amy through work and in california and here to offer my support. and tell me about a remodelling project and have worked with the architect and providing it three times and before it was finally approved. and the planning department and also tried to work with the neighbors for support of the project and with the discretionary review again. and the loss of privacy and adjacent and to create more space for this and to restore the privacy. and i would ask you to please reject the d.r. application and approve the project right now.

>> you have one question remaining. >> i am also in support of the project and my name is ann collins and 34 and san francisco and vouching for amy and barry alexander. and 30 years and the children have grown up in san francisco and recently both of the children graduated from u.c. santa cruz and amy is one of the kindest and honest people and she and barry are responsible and done due diligence and to get the motto and approved last year. amy has always been close with her parents and she and barry supported them over the years. now that amy's father is alone,

they wanted to be alone with them and they need to add the extra space to make a good home for him. so i am hoping that the commissioners will approve this remodel so her father can live with them. and the mater is now before you. and the d.r. requester number one, and two minutes to go. >> can you hear me? >> i have two minutes. i want to clarify and to mention

continue to and nothing about that view and my concern is that yes, the front of the house face north and i have a spring and the backyard the wet all yearlong. that is my concern and the water issue and have an elderly father and tell you and don't worry and i am saying i don't want the items and had a lot of problems with the water. and get more sun and lost this with the huge part built on the right side.

and four years ago and people might be and have never, ever approached me directly to talk about the project. they don't talk to me and send me registered letters to complain about garbage on the property. and i don't doubt they are know what they are doing and water and mitigated and need to replace the retaining wall into the property already. >> d.r. requester number two. >> i was number two. >> fisher. >> are you prepared to submit your rebuttal?

>> and d.r. requester and let's go to project sponsor and you have a two-minute rebuttal. and the commissioner and steve williams and obviously the water issue and the spring issue and the retaining wall issue and for the neighbor to the east and those are d.b.i. issues and questions that will be dealt with during construction and if i could, i would like to have slide 17 put up and this shows really clearly the full block face and the situation and the rear yards on the full block face. and the first five buildings on this block have no side setbacks at all. zero. and the neighbor to the west and one of the d.r. requesters has extensive and illegal decks and stairs like those straight to the property line.

and the buildings have setbacks on one side and there is no building that has ever been added to or expanded on this block and has setbacks on both side. this will be an unfeasible envelope and more than 1/3 devoted to setbacks. and the code also requires side setbacks if the lot reaches 50 feet wide. that is when you get a 5-foot setback and not getting the slides up and like to have slide 18 through 23 to go through those and show you the real privacy issues and that exist and the numerous people that populate the decks and rented out for air bnb on the continuous basis.

and erected the towering trurs and permitted and illegal fences and hopefully you have gone through the beef and saw those. -- hopefully you went through the brief and awe that with the side setback of # a feet and all will be on the project sponsor side only. >> thank you. your time is up. >> thank you. we're asking that you not take d.r. and approve as proposed. >> commissioners, now the mater is before you. >> commissioners? >> calling on me and i could not hear you. you broke up. are you calling on me? >> yes. thank you so much. and i have very carefully looked at the projects and i believe that staff's recommendation and accurate and the enlargement as

a whole is fully supported. i see the need to provide additional space and the enlargement is quite substantial and 1900 square feet and i believe that the modifications are proposed by staff are reasonable and indeed to live with more breathing room to everybody involved. and i am in support of staff's recommendation. >> commissioner fung. >> would you like to respond to why the change occurred so late? >> i'm sorry, david. i will interrupt you for a second. with the phone ringing in the background. could mute the microphone.

>> well, i mean, in certain cases and never a perfect process where design review occurs and a project sponsor and reality of time and rdat meets about 15 minutes on a project and to make determinations and most of the time we get it right and sometimes we miss it. and the discretionary review process i believe is in place far good reason. it is to allow members of the public to file petition and catch things we did miss and in this case and for whatever reason the department missed it. upon re-review, it was clear and evident based on the existing patterns of buildings and adjacent to the property and what was necessary to do and in order to adhere to the appropriate guidelines. and in response to that context.

and that is about all i have to say about that. >> and it is difficult for me to accept changes that occur at such a late date. however, the question is whether the proposal and has provided in the documents for us and has the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. and to require further modification in my opinion i don't see the extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. and i would support the original application without taking d.r.

>> none of the other properties on the street have a 5-foot setback and your conclusion and this requires it. and especially given the 3 1/2 foot setback on the other side? >> and if you go to the aerial view of the property that mr. williams had in the rebuttal, and i think it is clear when you see the pattern of buildings and four or five in a row and built with 5-foot side setbacks and built pretty consistently and encroaching into that and is a matter that we have to look at and looking at seriously and provide light and air and provide a consistent rear

building wall to the rear yards as well as enable windows that provide access to properties to the common open space. >> can you also address the issue about the spring and the retaining wall? >> typically technical issues and subsurface, water, and specific geological things and larger projects and environmental review are typically reviewed at the building department level. and in the response with the retaining walls and water mitigation is an issue that is typically handled to building department and is not a planning and land use issue. >> my last question is i, too, am troubled by the last minute

nature of the change. i understand how that happened. and it does impose a real burden on the project sponsor because there is a need to redo the plans. and can you address the question that was raised by commissioner fung about meets the d.r. standard. and the d.r. and d.r. available for a way to catch things and may have gotten out and at no point is the project considered approved. and the reason for 311 notification is based upon a review in the department and deem to be provable. and goes out and the d.r. process is there for people to say wait a minute. and extraordinary and exceptional circumstances and

that you might have missed and just because there no admission in the timing of the review doesn't change the fact that it's not compatible with our standard approach to how we would apply the guidelines in this case. and it's always better to know sooner rather than later. and also better to get things right. and this is the chance to do that. is there a position in between zero feet and 5 feet that would work and design standards that your thinking should be applied here. >> i suspect there is a setback of 3 feet and could work and would be to remiss anything less than that.

>> commissioner moore? >> and i wanted to remind people that a second review by rdat is quite typical and if rdat would not have caught it, there are other people and on plans and may have seen exactly out there and the timing as well is unusual and this kind of a call and rdat and not requiring and mr. winslow's summary and sitting on the commission. commissioner. >> thank you for explaining the change of the decision and i actually am also explaining what that means and for me, i am

confident in reviewing this and i am ready to make a motion to take the d.r. >> second. >> and commissioner imperial, and to take d.r. and approve with staff modifications and second that motion. >> and there is a motion to second that and no deliberation and to approve with staff modifications. commissioner diamond? >> no. >> commissioner fung? >> no. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and that motion fails 3-2 with commissioners diamond and voting against. is there an alternate motion? >> i would like to make a motion to take d.r. and not impose the

5-foot setback. what did you say was the minimum that you thought was acceptable? was it 3 feet? >> 3 feet. and 3 feet. second. very good, commissioners. seeing no additional comments, there is an alternate motion that had been seconded to take d.r. and approve the project with staff modifications but reducing the 5 foot side setback and on that motion, and commissioner fung. >> no. >> a commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> so moved. and that motion passes 4-1 with commissioner fung and against and and item 19 was continued. and item 19 was continued. item 20 -- or items 20a andb for

case numbers 2020 and the assistant zoning minister and for variance and 876 elizabeth street. >> good afternoon. >> go ahead, david. and good afternoon, president koppel and the staff architect and initiated that check and the building permit building 2019 and expand to the low grade basement level and the single family home and includes the vertical and horizontal tradition at the rear to the two-story home. the proposal is subject to the rear yard variance per planning

code and planning code section 134 and category a historic resource. and two d.r. requesters and russell and anita murphy. >> the adjacent property to the east. and kevin timpan and elizabeth street to the west. and opposed to the compliance of the structure and the proposed addition and to deny the request and code section 134. and opposed to increasing the compliance of the nonstructure and concerned about that excavation and will disrupt the understood ground spring resulting in issues downhill and lastly that includes the subject property's light well and will block to common access to plumbing.

and to date the department has received no letters and no opposition or in support of the project. and the 8 foot portion and the rear yard at the first floor and the removal of nonmassing from the pitched roof. and proposes the filling in the side from the 5'8" setback and this is one of the portions that requires a variance. and encroaches three feet into the required rear yard and also aligns with the adjacent area to the west and remains the 5'8" side setback to the downhill neighbor to the east. from property lines f and geotechnical and subsurface

water are beyond the means of assessment and regulation and deems the staffing and matches the extent and maintains the existing and side setback and existing site setback to the west is appropriate with the residential guidelines and does not create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. staff recommends not taking d.r. and as opposed. >> is one of the d.r. requesters prepared to make the presentation? >> i am. >> very good. it appears as though -- is there mr. murphy? >> it is, and i would ask if you put up page two of the pdf which was the err yol photo before i -- of the aerial photo.

>> please be aware there is a broadcast delay and speak to the slide and request next and the time is started. you have five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. and this is russ murphy and i am joined with my wife anita and we live downhill and have been there for 32 years. by trade i am a general contractor and have been a general contractor for over 30 years in san francisco. our neighborhood is predominantly long-term home owners and generally doesn't have a lot and with the front yards and backyards and the aerial photos to include with the packet and we are a community that appreciates and have appreciated the planning department and policy making to ensure building development maintains a balance between

building mass and rear yard open space. although my wife and i encourage the remodelling and general improvement of the property and surprised that the planning department apt to allow the large rear development and in conflict with its own policy and the planning code requires with all new construction unless a hardship has been proven. no hardship has been reasonably demonstrated and is therefore the commission's responsibility to bring this property into compliance. there has been some confusion regarding the proposed project and some created by the architect and some created by the planning department's public areas. and from the adjacent west side property and and no issue with the exposed light well. and with the legal edition and sharing one foundation with a crawl space below which is

incorrect. and the last 8 feet with the benefit of no foundation and no crawl space and no permit. it is more like an enclosed porch than a true structure and the existing exterior site plan and the variance condition. i can see this is corrected by a recent submittal and found this reading through the david winslow assessment near the end and never sent to me and shows two variances. it is misleading and identifies the rear as a second career to be demolished and the one story structure without that obstruction. and doesn't show the blue area upgrades. the planning department posted and should have a rear yard of 50 feet, 8 inches and the proposed rear yard addition is resulting in the rear yard of 45 feet, 8 inches. the plans show a 5'11"

encroachment and in actuality there will be a 16 foot extension into the rear yard leading only 25 feet of rear yard open space. this completely misleads the public to the depth of impact they will have on the rear yard open space. the architect was grandfathering the existing structure and this is the term to allow the existing structure and as long as it is not modified for change and that is not the case and the structural deck roof and new doors and windows and the rear yard and even different footprints and includes 28 foot long by 10 feet deep retaining areas and extending and extending to the property between us and that new retaining wall is, i would believe, developing into the rear yard open space. our house was remodelled in 1985 without any barrier and in

complete compliance with the planning codes and policies and two families and our house is identical to the subject properties. and the rear yard open space and extends 5'11" on the third floor and and the rear yard open space and the subterranean building space into the rear yard open space and this remodel is not being done to serve the community need. 20 people have in this neighborhood sent letters and in capital requirement. and all opposing this project. planning department should not be deciding in favor and listening to the concerns of the

community and the planning department and have a beautiful neighborhood which is respective of all the years we have lived here and lots of remodelling and the rear yard open space and dropped the ball on this one and the commission should take this opportunity to enforce their own policy and bring into code compliance on behalf of the entire neighborhood and no hardships met and the house across the street sold over a year ago for 3.5 million. >> thank you for your time. >> make the presentation. >> yes, i am. and can we request that we have the opportunity for rebuttal and correct any factual inaccuracies and there are some additional in the recommendations. >> the hearing procedure provides you with a two-minute

rebuttal. the slides are up and the time is running. >> i am the neighbor on the west side and my family and i have lived here for 30 years and the arguments that with the rejection of the permit and hardship to the neighborhoods and creates a hardship on our side and additionally to the rest of the folks on this side of the block. and the planning closed and extend and the encroachment into the rear yard and the significant threat of damage to the property. and the excavation and building expansions and subterranean and as well as extending out to the back of the e.r. and 20 feet and a well known underground stream that runs through the neighborhoods with water flow that goes through the backyards and potentially builds up in

heavy rains and building beyond the line of our house and further than other buildings on the block would disrupt the water flow considerably and d.b.i. hearings in the future and no reason to actually allow the permit to be going beyond the city code at the expense of our property. the proposal itself is misleading. the extension of the property as proposed does not end at the backyard line of 878 elizabeth street as it may sound like in mr. winslow's presentation and extends another 15 feet into the backyard area and a one-story structure and a deck on the second floor. and is not a simple replacement of the existing structure and the shortening of the existing structure and the minimal amount and which was an illegal

restructure and replaced with effectively three stories and subterranean and one story and the pop out and a deck on top of that. and we have a few things that we can conclude from this and is unreasonable to put neighbors at risk and infringe on us with the rights in the neighborhood for the benefit of one new property owner and to have a variance in the code to do so. commissioners themselves have not shown any kind of hardship for which they should be granted a variance at the expense of this and in the filing and the preservation and enjoyment and the substantial property right. and the property owners including existing neighbors which should be protected by this commission and the regulations that are in the code. so our recommendation is to direct the petitioners to adjust the plans to remove the

extensions above and below ground beyond what is in the code. beyond the regulations that are in the code. ask them to include full plans to address any construction needed, not only to secure their own buildings but to prevent any kind of water damage to neighbors with or without an extension. we deal in good faith with many discussions and conversations and conversations that were misleading. we have had to have reviews with the permitters that have been held by flashlight because they didn't have a place to have us see with additional lighting or to have plans distributed to the neighbors. and to identify specifics and what needs to be provided in the permit when it's completed. and there is an increasing concern that we cannot trust in good faith the implementation of the decisions and the recommendations that are being made today. we don't oppose the development

in principle. and we do oppose the principle that the planning codes are not there to protect us equally and with the new owner of the property. thank you very much. >> great. thank you. >> and that concludes d.r. presentations and project sponsor and you have 10 minutes. this is william and architect and representing the project sponsors and the planning department and this was an existing 24 foot extension into the backyard. we are taking 8 feet of that extension off and there will be a remaining, existing 16 foot extension and did meet with the russells and tried to explain to

this and a further reduction and one that is called legal nonconforming and the policy of the city for quite some time. and to look at the existing buildings and put it into the 317 demolition analysis and the reason for the variance and nobody has mentioned really and the a building and we had meetings with the we were concerned with the architectural significant building and we couldn't develop the allowable building area and we did the setback and the setback and what we feel is architecturally correct. and 15 feet from the front allowable building line. and the variance is paced on the hardship that is the historical building and made more sense when the amount we're asking for

is actually to have a vertical addition and does exceed the allowable variance and position by 2 feet and asking for 60 at the first floor and there is a notch at the ground level and you can't see it from any property and with the fence blocking and the only extension was subterranean and that is something you can't see and that is not -- that does not impact the neighbors as far as any drainage issue and this is a d.b.i. issue and i want to emphasize and the architect in the city for 43 years and numerous buildings and almost majority and extend beyond the property line and there weren't zoning laws back when they were constructed. and we are increasing the open space by 8 feet in the back.

and the issue about the neighbor to the west and there was a property line window and at the house and expressly showing that window in the correct place. i was told that they were going to do a kitchen addition and we could work out a skylight solution and did as a neighbor gesture said we offer to assist them in the construction of this and i think it was more negotiation unfortunately that broke down. and i want to reiterate and doing a modest construction and at least modestly as you can see that most of the work and in a way and doesn't impact anybody and as far as we offered and any privacy issues to build a 7 foot

high glass opaque wall on this side to make sure and insure that everybody and that includes my remarks. thank you. >> thank you. if the first d.r. requester would like to -- excuse me -- we need to go take public comment first. >> through the chair -- and to summon each question, press 1 and zero. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number and press 1 and 0 to get into the queue and you will have two minutes. >> you have three questions remaining. >> hello, this is sarah wilmer. are you online? >> you are. >> hello.

i would like to support the project. this the sometime to do that. >> to support the d.r. yes? hello? yes, your time is running. >> okay, sorry. so i would like to support russell and kevin's d.r. i am an architect in the neighborhood and live across the street and i do this kind of work for 20 years and say a couple of things are of concern to me and the support for kevin and russell which is the rear yard issue and in all the projects in san francisco and huge support and the planning department to keep the rear yard and the noncompliance structure and to place it in kind.

and draped with this rear yard extension as it end and the design proposal should include and keeping it as it is and not modifying it in any volume whatsoever. i think i don't quite understand what the variance is that was applied to here. but the historic resource category a, which is, of course, a significant issue and the setback is not as special to historic buildings and doesn't have a setback and i would like to support the d.r. proposal by perform. >> and you have three questions remaining. >> caller: i am andrew and am i

on? >> you are. >> and i live at 857 elizabeth street and we have been there over 30 years. what i have enjoyed watching and being on the block here. and the ability for the kids to go and multiple backyards and climb the fences and get together and numerous houses where people have been installed gates in the fences and the kids can go back and forth, and this is something you do and preserve the backyard and eaten away and eroded by equal footings there and putting other structures in there. and this doesn't exist for the kids anymore. and when i was young, we could go to holly park and do months

of that through backyards and fences and a couple of alleyways. kids can't do that today. what they can do is preserve the backyards and can go out to play with the adjacent families. so i am a supporter to have the backyard. >> sean cuban. am i up? >> you are. >> residential builders association. i would like to start by reading a quote that i think, a., expresses their concerns and at the same time will help understand why this is so misleading and our objections are about allowing a major

unconforming structure to be intensified and extended 21 # feet into the rear yard open space with a new rooftop deck. that would scare me. when we look closer and we look to see what is really going on and more nuanced floor by floor approach, the d.r. requester failed to mention the floor which ex21 feet past the rear yard is below grade and failed to mention that the second one is 8 feet shorter than what is currently there today. that means the rear yard open space is 8 feet more and will be increased from what it is today. the d.r. requester fails to mention that the proposed third floor sicks out three feet and

given the design feature of the gabled roof and the length of the existing building, they offer substantially less from the second floor and due to the categorical rating of the facade and the project sponsor and design team were instructed not to go to the floor and instead do your best to have the expansion pushed back and push it down. that is exactly what they have done. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hello. my husband and i bought our house at 854 elizabeth street in 1986 and so we have been living

here for 34 years. i would like to make two points. we all love our shelters and the gardens and the mental health and in the 1890 and remodelled to single family homes and sitting in the back office and from across the yard and three stories and to doing that and we expect this is possible in the case of 876 elizabeth. so with the request for the

discretionary review and the builder said something about the historical variance and not being able to change the look of the front of the house and that is why the variance was required with the neighbors and kept the peaked roof and the look of the victorian from the front of the curb. >> and to have the integrity of the neighborhood. and something about being able

to all live together and without having to compromise and the homes or the quality of our lives. with the neighbors similar. that is not an invasion of privacy and that buildout that is there and that is hidden and the proposed buildout they want to do is very invasive and look

at the d.r. packet and several pictures that give you a good idea and making a bone about that and that is a little shed and the backyard and three foot above grade. and neighbors and windows on the otherside and prefer if they grandfath grandfather something, leave it as is. and made that point and grandfathering is understood to

let this project be modified and to quickly talk about that water issue. one of the first things i did when we moved in is to put french drains that are 5 feet long across the property. from this property and another one downhill of that and that is huge systems and before that was done, all the properties were under water at hefl rains and even to the rains, they do not drain. they will have inches of water and is a clay loam and eventually gets to the french drains that were installed and clears the way to the drain. >> is d.r. requester available? >> yes, i am.

>> thank you. and we do hear quite a bit about the historic housing requirements and that the reason for the variances is because it is an historic property. there is nothing that requires the historic property to have a variance and because they want additional square footage, which is fine, i understand that. but what they want to have should not be at the loss of the policies and the codes of the commission and the planning department to affect us adversely. it is a loss we git when the backyard is extended in the fashion as it is proposed today. it doesn't have to do with the historic and we are not arguing about additional heights and it is really the encroachment into

the backyard and motion there isn't an encroachment that goes 15 feet beyond the end of our building and that is not to say that there isn't something already there, but what they are intending to build is still 15 feet beyond what the regulations and the policy actually allow. and it doesn't -- the commission has the opportunity to bring into code exactly what the policy says. and it is exactly what the petitioners have said over the phone which is what all of us appreciate about protecting the permit and the rest of the neighborhood as well. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> am i on? and real quickly i want to reiterate we are not building out there. the structure is there. again, we are removing the last 8 feet.

we are making improvements. i believe issues that were not talked about when we had the meeting and happy to address and still work on with planning staff and the adjacent owners are i believe two windows on the west that are at fence height. and no visibility issues and are certainly willing to take a look at thatened a make sure there is no invasion of any privacy on the neighbors. and again, the other thing that hasn't been said and right now this is a one bedroom house that is just a ramshackle house. the idea here is to provide family housing. the families have talked in and this is not currently a family house. it is a simple one bedroom with a lot of strange spaces. this is what will turn this into the backyard to be bigger and if

there are privacy issue, we have been happy to work with anybody on that to insure the privacy of any neighbors, opaque windows, making them smaller, planting, and you make the it. and we would be happy to do it. that concludes the>> a commissioner moore? that concludes the presentation.

the mater is now before you, commissioners. >> i will be approving the request -- >> commissioner moore? >> an i tried to put myself into the position of understanding the project as it is presented. and i ran into a number of difficulties. are you hearing me? yes. i found the dimensioning lengths intentionally vague. for example, to understand the issue of the rear yard is almost impossible to understand because there is no dimension string or any kind of indication that clearly elineates and in the drawings that is typically found in front of us. and there are drawings existing on proposed sheets duplicated with no proper identification and what i am looking at to dig deep and to to figure out what it is i am looking at.

the next issue is the plans are incomplete and no stair from the second to the third floor and looking at the plans and looking and looking and looking and theres no stair indicated with how to get to the second to third floor. that makes thincomprehensible. and the lattice drawing and f2 and f3 and to the third floor, it is not there. and i personally believe there are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances. it simply is an enlargement for 2300 square foot building to something which is 3400 square foot which i would like to understand. however, to repeat, the drawings as presented doing that make it

impossible for me. two possibilities from my perspective is if the developer and the applicant would step back, continue, and resubmit the drawings with clear indications of what is intended with this building including how to get to the second to third floor and in addition to that to have that context and the issues with privacy from the neighbors is to entertain the project ant where we stand today, i will not be able to fully do so. the biggest issue here is the nonconforming use.

what is being proposed in the subgrade portion of the upper level is the intensification and i cannot support that. >> and from commissioner fung and the way i see this building is from a three-story building and for me is a mega mansion and from if the nonsupplying structure and i think it needs to bring it into code.

so i would take the d.r.ened in terms of the details and will have commissioner moore prompted me to think about it and rather take the d.r. >> commissioner moore. >> and commissioner fung, would you explain to all of us intensification of nonconforms use? that comes obviously out of your deep experience in the board of appeals and to explain later in the week. the planning code has a year yard setback requirement and therefore, that portion of the building that does that is nonconforming.

>> thanks. i get it. in general in nonconforming structures as per code are not allowed to be intensified. and that's regular concept that has been around forever. that is the most important thing and with the drawings and where what is relative to the nonidentifiable compliance and thank you so much for saying that. >> can you address the nonconforming use question? and clearly making it extend less far into the yard. and in some respects they are decreasing the amount of nonconformity and commissioner

fung is talking about intensifying the use and maybe they will have a deck on top and i agree that the plans are somewhat challenging. and can you address why you are not troubled by it? >> let me share nigh screen while i answer that question and the existing building extends well beyond the required rear yard line and can you see the arrow? so this is the existing structure and extends into the required rear yard and is an existing noncompliant

structural. the proposal is to remove this portion at the first level and 8 feet and is in with the continuous dimension string and filling in this portion and the little notch and is also still beyond with the rear yard line. that results in a plan like this

and is improving the condition with respect to the rear yard. and expect for that small air they are proposing to fill in and the roof deck is allowed on a noncompliant structure typically without a variance. >> so you don't agree it is an intensification? >> i don't want to quibble with words. in the code, a roof deck is allowed on an existing noncomplying structure without a variance if it maintains the minimum height of guardrails for such a deck. the intensification would exist and this notch portion would be an intensification.

and that is proposed from the lower floor is the intensification of a deck at this level. this is replacing massing in the form of the pitched roof that is above the existing structure. from the massing perspective, not a use perspective, and massing and decreasing the massing. the third story addition is encroaching into the required rear yard which looks like approximately 3 feet and mr. sanchez will be looking at the variance issues. does this fit the mad earn of adjacent buildings? that was our determination that it did. so that is how we arrived at the

recommendation. so that -- yeah. okay. >> mr. sanchez want to comment? >> i can share with the commissioners the thoughts and analysis that goes into the variance review. and i think mr. winslow did an excellent job in going through the floor by floor level which is required with the variance. and additional details and is an are, h2 zoning district and are allowed and the subject property is 25 feet wide by 114 deep which is 114 and deeper than the typical lot and based on the square footage and even some internal consistencies on the

plan and the square footage and the numbers i will give you include the garage space as well from 2,337 square feet to 3,424 square feet and more than 1,000 square foot addition and from two to four bedrooms and there is potentially a two bedroom identified as a media/guest room but remains a single family district and one less allowed under the planning code and that is what the planning outlook would allow and the first floor with the garage is going from 900 square feet to 1400 square

feet and this is from underground structures are allowed in the last area and that will advisory a variance and the material referenced in the existing legal edition. so do not get credit for something that should be remove and if that is the portion being removed and the existing legal noncomplying structure.

with the minor extensions and the neighbors have pushed forward the argument that this needs to be code compliant and we always try to look at what comprises would be possible and in this case it could be justified for some of the conditions. it is a question of how much and the third floor is a new floor and no existing square footage and is a little less than 800 square feet and two bedrooms and the variances needed at that level for about 3 feet at the back. there is the deck above the existing floor and you are allowed to place decks on existing legal noncompliant structure. it does not vary a variance and is allowed with a 10-day know toe and something done fairly

often and mr. fung knows we see these as the board of appeals as well only if there is a solid firewall and open railing allowed under the code and so from this level of deck is mainly the main issue. it is a nice amenity for that master bedroom that they have at that level and with the third floor setback 15 feet and in total is about 31 feet from the property line and 1/3 of the lot depth. so that planning code and -- hopefully they are not talking about me. >> and it allows the planning code and the structure to be

maintained and does allow modifications and demolish and reconstruct and would need the variance. and the expansion is what needs the variance here. and we give the new noncompliant structures and we did recently last year. and the rh1 zones district and a lot of noncompliant structures. and even if there is other work on the property. any replacement in kind would need variance and those are the comments for the commission and i wanted to give you some additional information and some of the analysis that we are preparing the variance. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. that was quite the lengthy response. maybe they were referring to you.

commissioners? >> once again, i am leaning towards staff recommendation. commissioner diamond? i am also leaning towards staff recommendation. i found the explanations that were just recently provided to be helpful in coming to that thinking. i am concerned about the windows and the privacy and the only way to address those is by taking d.r. and can happen in any other way? that is a question for you, mr. winslow. and not the variance request. commissioner moore?

you may be muted. >> unfortunately, given what is in front of me was incomplete drawings and information that is not clearly discernible for me despite good explanation from administrator sanchez, i will not be able to support what is in front of me. if there is no motion, the project gets approved as proposed. would anybody like to take a stab at a motion? commissioner fung. >> maybe we should ask the d.a. which way is he leaning? if he is going to turn it down, the variances, then as proposed

this project would need to be would gnat happen. >> thank you, commissioner. i appreciate calling on me for that. at the ground level and the main issues and the better process to have the properties get together and what i think thats could be made to make this work and seems to be the win dose and the deck. the deck is not necessary. the windows are something that could be allowed today and get a permit tomorrow to add windows at the site on the existing

structure. this is before the commission and it is a question of what comprise here that is supported and the commission could deny the project in the entirety or take any other changes to it and the main issue are the windows and the deck. >> if we take d.r., we could mention that. isn't that right, mr. winslow? >> that is right. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask the commission to stand strong that under any circumstance do we

need to have drawings that are indeed understandable for us. and we spent more than 45 minutes having mr. winslow, mr. sanchez, and everybody else trying to explain to us what is in front of us. we cannot even properly read the drawings. to expect every professional in town and make a reasonable effort to get things in front of us which are understandable. this plan is not understandable the. i want to support this project, but i believe that if there are comprises made and to be reflected in t drawing and that is proper, consistent dimension strength and the dimension strengths in front of me that will meander and give instructions to the applicant

and come back with the revising and i have to stick to some principle and which we accept in front of us and this is not making the muster. >> an i do find it quite problematic in terms of intensification and noncompliant and would be goo if there is a continuance for the two parties to come together and to come back with a revised drawing so the commissioners and the commission can properly look at

this project appropriately. in that note, i would like to make a motion to continue this project. >> for how long, commissioner imperial? >> i'll second that motion. >> for a month. >> commissioner diamond? >> i am supportive of a continuance and completely agree with commissioner moore and understand and understand what we are approving. to be very clear about what we are working on during the continuance. for me the issue is the windows on the side. i don't know if there are other issues with the commission and to see it come back and with the privacy concern.

>> and ask that there is an access between floor two and three and get dimension strengths and which put the proper dimensions and the intrier property and rear yard dimension that is typical for drawings of this kind. clear indication and the intensification occurs and that commissioner fung outlined and do that in a plan and not the separate drawing. to be labelled drawings on the second or first floor and takes a long time to figure out if it is existing or proposed. seeing no further comment,

commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter and on that motion, commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> a commissioner fung? >> aye. >> a commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> yes. >> commissioner president koppel? >> aye. so moved. that passes unanimously and will pass 5-0 and continue to july 16. thank you. >> very good, commissioners. that will conclude that hearing. >> thank you so much.

>> okay, good morning everyone, welcome to the june 16th committee meeting of the treasure island mobility management agency. madam clerk, would you please call the roll. [roll call] >> mandelman absent.