>> i'd like to wish my mother a happy 88th birthday today. on february 25, 2020 the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. on april 3, 2020 the planning commission received authorization to recon remotely. this will be our 33rd remote hearing and requires your attention and patience. if you're not speaking mute your microphone and turn off your camera as we're streaming live and will receive public comment for each item. comments or opportunities to

speak during the public comments are available by calling 1-415-655-0001 entering access code 146 248 1397. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking, to please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you're line is unmuted that is your queue to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when have you 30 seconds remain you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when you're allotted time is reached i'll announce your time sup and take the next person queued to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call]

first is consideration for items 1. continuing at 590 2nd avenue for continuation. item 2 [reading case number] . proposed for continuation to february 25, 2021. further commissioners to your regular calendar item 9 [reading item] citing administrative code is requesting a continuance to january 28, 2021.

items 10, 11a, 11b, 11c for case numbers [reading case numbers] for the final environmental impact report see ceqa finding and variance are proposed the property at 550 feril treat -- street is request continuance and i'm pleased to announce our d.r. is for discretionary review item 16 manged to reach an agreement at 1151 washington street with both discretionary review requesters and therefore that matter has been withdrawn.

i have no other items to propose for continuance. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to any of the items proposed for continuance by pressing star and 3 to get in the queue. i see one person requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm with a project sponsor for item number 2. we are working with the supervisors office to revise this and request a shorter continuance hopefully to be january 8. thank you.

>> okay. anyone else requesting to speak. you have two minutes. go ahead, caller. >> caller: hello? i didn't hear anything. oh, someone else -- >> you're on, sir. if you would like to speak to any of the matters proposed for continuance. we'll go to the next caller. >> caller: about 597 avenue why

there is continuance. >> at this time we're taking comments on the continuance and i'd reach out to the project planner and they can explain the reason for the continuance. >> i'm not sure what we should be talking about right now. i'm not sure what item we're on but i'm calling about the tall trees. it's being continued. >> are you calling about 2nd

avenue? >> caller: i'm sorry, i just got here and calling about the trees. >> candle stick. >> okay. >> caller: i'll call back. what do you want me to do? >> candlestick. >> the executive park boulevard matter for consent matter 3. >> yes, sorry. if you want to speak to that, you'll have to request that matter be pulled off consent. is that what you want to do? are you in opposition to that project? >> caller: yes. >> we'll pull that off consent and our practice is to have that heard at the end of the end of the agenda. yes, you'll need to call back at that time but we'll pull it off consent. thank you. any other members of the public

for matters of continuance suppress star 3 to be added to the queue. i see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time so the matters proposed for continuance are now before you >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore, you're muted. >> move to continue items 1 and 2 and add to the list items 10, 11 and 9 as noted. >> second. >> thank you on the motion to

continue items as proposed, [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes unanimously 7-0 placing us under your content calendar. >> i'll continue item 11 to january 14. >> okay. now that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted on by a single roll call. there'll be no separate discussion unless public or staff requests and which may be removed and considered at a

future hearing as we heard there was a request to move item 3, for conditional use authorization so that will be heard at the end of today's agenda. leaving item 4, under discretionary review which remains on the consent calendar. to take discretionary review and approve as modified. we'll take public comment to see if anyone would like to move the second matter off consent. this is the opportunity to speak to the consent calendar or rather i should say to request that. the item 4 be pulled off

consent. i do see two members of the public requesting to speak. >> caller: i wanted to oppose the project and don't know if as the right time for that? >> it's not. that matter has been continued to january 14 of the new year. that would be the time to call back. >> caller: i want to confirm it's the right time to speak regarding item 3. item 3 will be heard at the end of today's agenda. we received a request to remove it from the consent calendar so it's not being considered at this time.

members of the public this is your last opportunity to press star and 3 to be added to the queue and item 3 has already been pulled off consent and will be considered at the end of today's agenda. okay, commissioners, public comment is closed and the remaining matter under your consent calendar is now before you. >> commissioner fong. >> move approval item 4. >> second. >> on the motion to take discretionary review and approve the project. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye.

>> commissioner diamond. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> it passes unanimously 7-0. item 5 consideration of adoption of your 2021 hearing schedule. we sent a proposed schedule to you and other option to consider. looking at the observed holidays in 2021, moving backwards from december we are proposing to can sell december 30 hearing as the

fifth thursday before new year's, december 23 for the christmas holiday. november 25 for thanksgiving. november 11 veterans day, in september, we have i believe it is yom kippur that falls on december 16 but you may consider september 7 and cancel september 9 instead. we have a regular summer hiatus in august for the first three weeks and rather than cancel july 29 as the fifth hearing in july given you'll be getting a three-week break in august i'm suggesting july 1 for the july 4 holiday. then april 8 we are considering

the spring break or easter celebration to cancel that date and we don't have other proposed hearing cancellations but some to consider we generally cancel the first because after the knew year and january 7 for personal reasons is orthodox christmas i celebrate that we do have a full calendar and understanding that it is a full week from the new year i won't expect it will be canceled but something to consider. february 12 is the chinese new erand lincoln's birthday. you may consider february 11. march 17 is st. patrick's day

and may consider march 18. easter falls on april 4 this year. i don't know about the san francisco school direct but my son's spring break will be the week after so i'm recommending april 8. may 2 is orthodox easter, you may consider may 6. april 15 is tax day you may consider cans -- cancelling out of mourning and may 6 is mother's day so may consider the sixth and june 25 is father's day. june 24 say possibility. is a possibility.

memorial 27 may -- memorial day 27 and the commission cancels 10 to 12 hearings during the year. at this time the proposed draft has 10 cancellations. you may want to keep it that way and leave two in your back pocket for light hearing days or things that come up in the future or go ahead and cancel them today. that's all i have as far as your hearing schedule for 2021. we should take public comment actually. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the 2021 hearing schedule. press star and 3 to get in the queue. i get no members of the public requesting to speak so public

comment and the matter is now before you. >> i'm okay as it but would like to hear from other commissioners. >> commissioner imperial. >> i'm also okay with as-is and two hearings in the future but i'm okay as well. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm okay as-is. i would like to ask commissioner diamond for her comment on the 16th versus september 9. my preference is the 9th partially because there are some of us when we come out to have

an extra week rather than coming back for one meeting and for those with relatives it allows more opportunities when holidays can begin to make that longer. that's opinion. what matters is commissioner diamond taking opposition on this. >> thank you, commissioner moore. yom kippur doesn't interfere with the hearing date. i understand the reason for your request but the 16th is actually important to me to preserve a day we don't have a hearing. >> okay. if so, one can always take an extra day off. thank you.

>> commissioner fung. >> you're muted. >> i'll bring up my point on the calendar why we take the summer hiatus. i would prefer to see we take days off regularly throughout the entire year rather than concentrate. right now they're all concentrated in the back half of the year and only one in the front half of the year and i would prefer probably a couple more towards the first six months. >> well, speaking to that point, commissioner fung, though i'm

not suggesting any dates in the first quarter there's a fairly long stretch, three months without a break until april you may consider throwing one in february or march. if not, i understand as well. the summer hiatus coincides with the board of supervisors break which they take the full month of august off. i know the reason why. >> i never thought it correlated to our agendas anyway. >> commissioner diamond. >> i appreciate the long break in august and people can take extended breaks with their

families when school is not in session. i'd like to approve the extended break in august not related to the board of supervisors schedule but related to being able to plan a family vacation at the same time of year. i do agree with commissioner fung it's a long stretch at the beginning of the year without a break and might be appropriate to add in one more break in february or march. i have no particular preference for days. i just think the concept is a good one. >> to that point, february 12 is chinese new year and march 17 is st. patrick's as options for holiday cancellations. >> let's do february 12 if others don't mind. >> that would be the february 11th hearing.

>> i personally am okay with that. commissioner. >> i was nodding in agreement with the suggestion. >> february 12 is the holiday. february 11 would be hearing day. >> that is a great idea. i agree with commissioner diamond having a long stretch in august is good during the summertime but a date in february i think is appropriate. >> commissioner imperial. >> i agree with february 11 and agree on summer hiatus and miss my family in the philippines. i would appreciate that. that's all. >> commissioner moore. >> i am in full support of the february date except in response to commissioner imperial's comment we will not have that long one to have an extra day

off and that's sometimes the way it goes. >> i'm referring to the august. >> because we are supporting commissioner's diamond choice of date being the 16th, we are going to be on the week before. >> i understand. >> i would entertain a motion to approve such schedule. >> commissioner diamond. move the schedule with the additional break february 11. >> happy to second but want to make a point so folks are clear. with the current proposed schedule up to three meetings cancelled in august and the last week we come back the 26th and i

think labor day is in early september. it isn't quite in line with that if that's what folks want to have it's not currently there and there is some confusion about that. >> right. >> to be clear we're not proposing september 2 as a day to cancel for the labor day holiday. it's the first monday of september. i think it would be like september -- it would be after. >> i think september 6 this eror next year. -- this year next year. and maybe there was an impression we were cancelling around labor day and want to make sure folks are clear we are not.

>> the next break would be september 16 for yom kippur which would have three hearings, the 26th, september 26 and september 9 as proposed on the draft schedule. >> in response to commissioner imperial's comment then the second we would be on, correct? >> yes, as currently proposed. >> right. then the 6th -- okay. >> do i hear a second? >> i second. >> thank you, commissioners on the motion to adopt the hearing schedule as proposed adding february 11 recognizing the chinese new year. [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you. the motion passes unanimously 7-0 placing us on item 6 for commissioner comments and questions. okay, seeing no requests to speak by any commissioner, we can move on to department matter. directors announcements. >> thank you. i'm star of sllegislative afea s afears -- affairs. the commission had an item last

week and [audio digitizing] and there was one public commenter representing the cultural district who called and support the ordinance. after minor technology amendments were made to the ordinance the committee forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. the commission continued the hearing on strategy to maximize affordable housing on public lands for one week to allow more time for discussion. at the full boards the board passed and the landmark designation for the royal baking company and the hearing ceqa for 350 san josé avenue was withdrawn and the determination was upheld and the appeal for green street was continued to december 15. that concludes my report and happy to answer any questions.

>> thank you. i have no report from the board of appeals. that concludes item 8. at this time we should take general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction except agenda item. with respect your ability to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit general public comment and enter the queue by press star and 3 to get in the queue. i have no members of the public

>> caller. >> caller: happy birthday to your mother and happy chanukah. i sent an e-mail with pictures and showed four projects and my point is because five of you were not seated when i first showed the projects last year. at the meeting last week in the recovery and how we're coming out of the problem we're having especially in housing post pandemic i thought it would be good to show these again. if you can please show picture number two. >> you're slides are up. >> caller: number two are the multi million dollar condos on the building on the right. it's funny because you go down

to slide three and there they are three condos and each over a million, $1.2 million, $1.3 million and next door in slide four was and is the building that was saved by the small sites program and there's a picture of the mayor and the tenants and supervisor moore. and the tenants at to the other building that was saved said there was direct pressure on the building next door the three condos and if you look at that, it's odd because if it was retail and i put the map but you can't really read it but if you look at that building that was a maj major majoral alteration -- alteration it doesn't look like retail but two units about

throughout be that as it may, people were saved and contrary was 33 day on slide six. that's the house as it was and also a horizontal and vertical change and facade change and $2.3 million to what it is there on slide seven. and directly across the street from that is the six-unit building before the alteration and before and you can see on slide 9 and 10 it's for sale now. so what's my point? well, i always talk about relative affordability and you didn't see that in the day street project that were single-family homes but the pressure extends to buildings nearby and these are directly across the street and i think that's going to happen again as

we come out of this pandemic and the economic down turn, if you want to call it that because this is when all this happened before to projects and other projects. i think if you go around the city you see multi-unit building with pressure. i'll leave it at that and take good care and thank you. have a good day. bye. >> thank you. members of the public, if you wish to submit general public comment now is your opportunity by pressing star and 3. i have no members of the public requesting to speak so public comment and the matter is now before you. item 9, item 10 and items 11a through c have all been continued placing us on item 12

for case 2020-057023cua for 1649 divisadero street. >> this is for establishment of a cannabis retail use. approximately a space located at the ground floor of the mixed use building and 65a voltage street. minor alterations are proposed and next year alteration proposed. no on site of cannabis is proposed. the specific property is a 970

square foot property on the west side between sutter and pole being street and developed with two detached buildings each running along the divisadero street and the department has not received any correspondence in opposition but received support including correspondence from mission neighborhood centers and cannabis retailers alliance and the project sponsor conducted a virtual public outreach meeting on july 1,

2020. the department recommends approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and vaugluable for th following reason. it's consistent with objectives and policies with the general plan and meets the planning code. will support the equity program administered by the office of cannabis and will not displace business but provide new business and job opportunities for the neighborhood. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you.

is the project sponsor with us? mr. rice, you have been unmuted. not hearing anything from the project sponsor let's go to public comment and see if he decides to join us. members of the public have you two minutes to submit your public comment. >> caller: i was not speaking on that but after hearing the presentation i'm in favor and waiting to speak on executive boulevard. thank you. >> thank you. >> caller: hello. i'm jhonny delfram can you hear

me? >> yes. >> caller: i'm president of the san francisco cannabis retailers alliance and have known the project sponsors for a very long time and the san francisco equity group you can't find a more diverse connected group of community advocates that will bring the best project and every year he buys thousand of toys for kids in for instance and it's something that brightens the live of children and speak as a district 5 resident a few blocks from the project site and there's no access at that point. the closest dispensary is i think about a mile away but you

cross and it's a different world. as far as convenient neighborhood access and vibrant commercial corridors, a very community orient the team like all natives bringing a really important project to my neighborhood. i'm in strong support and couldn't be led by a better group. thank you very much. >> caller: good afternoon, i'm a resident and calling to support the project and urge you to approve the conditional use permit. in looking at some of the examples of the san francisco equity group kim mitchell is a founding member of, we have seen how transformative stores ran by other san francisco natives such as sean richards and others have

been for those individuals and the communities they're a part of and city as a whole. they've supported people and take it on and contributed to everything in the city and this new venture is benefiting people impacted by the war on drugs in this city. and in their communities in such a positive way and this owner is willing to hire locally and been a member of the community for years and urge you to support the project. not only has he been a positive life line in the community but

in this community as well. thank you so much. >> caller: hi, i'm a born and raised native of san francisco and community worker. i support this project because this project will produce ownership and the project is committed to local hiring which means a lot to me. if anyone deserves an opportunity -- i was a troubled youth and no one believed in me or took the time to care about me having a great future and he believed in me and gave me the opportunity at 13, 14 years old providing me my first opportunity of employment and group counselling and case management within five years. there were no judgments just

pure hard work and continued to teach us how to live a productive life and always give back to community when we can. this is why i hold a strong place for community. today i consider myself a great community leader and successful woman and loving parent and family member and lastly a survivor. this would not have been possible if people like kim mitchell did not take the time to care for us and citing an every lasting foundation he still has today. and i'm confident when you approve this project it will go beyond and continue to do this work in fostering our generation's past, present and future. thank you. >> caller: i live on divisadero.

we kind of requested conditional approval and how to make progress through the pandemic for the following reasons. construction noise due to stay at home orders and working at home will be disruptive when we have no other option. we're concerned about double parking. it's already an issue with delivery trucks and people and we're concerned about safety when the stores opens there is no staff when the door is closed and women who live alone are concerned about being at home alone and concerned about odor. thank you for considering the request.

>> caller: thank you. i've been a san francisco resident over 40 years and a director for san francisco sheriff's department. i've lived in the area approximately 30 years before i actually moved from the east bay. i've known kim mitchell over 30 years as well from his early on days working for the city. i trust kim. i trust his efforts. i also trust his giving back he's known for. i stand in support of the measure and sanctioned by the planning commission and say cheers to kim and to his partner, joe. thank you.

>> caller: hi, i'm a representative [indiscernible] and our executive directors we support kim mitchell in his venture and believe he does great work so i can imagine how great it will flourish on divisadero. hose known in the community and we support him. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: i'm david goldman the president of the san francisco democratic cannabis policy club. thank you for taking my call, commissioners. i'm speaking on behalf of the

applicant have known him many years working on cannabis project and a real credit to the equity program and has done a lot to promote equity programs in the city. i recently met kim mitchell and having read his background. i'm truly impressed and hope you'll support the applicant and think they'll be a credit to the community. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kim mitchell. we weren't connected. we were on mute, myself and joe rece. i'm kim mitchell and the ceo and social equity partner for the proposed dispensary at 1649 divisadero. i've been the cbo executive director over 25 years. i helped to create over 1,000 jobs, save homes from bank

foreclosure one was for my own self and co-founder of san francisco youth football in san francisco we helped over 1,000 families. provided one of the safe areas in the sector of san francisco southeast sector of san francisco with the violence and co-founder of the sfeg one of the greatest equity programs that we've created and also i don't know if you can see slide three and proud to say the business for 1649 divisadero will be comprised of community leaders to dedicated their lives for combined of 150 years. the ownership will be more than seven people verified applicants and applicants with all the

support over the city, five areas of the city combined is 150 years on top of always doing this work. the groups consistent of san francisco equity group, real alternative programs, united player, street violence intervention program with svip, brother brothers against gun, tru and san francisco south pacific islanders. i'd like to say the opportunity was given to myself and partners which is the community. we'd do the things we've been doing over 25 years looking out nor community, helping out with everyone and making sure we sustain and help san francisco become a better place and we are all san francisco people and born and raised. my co-partner joe is on the line and thank you for giving me the

time. >> you have two or almost three minutes remaining and for the record mr. rece's line was unmuted at the beginning of the hearing. >> is it possible for joe to get the three minutes or do i have to continue? >> his line is unmute. >> we both called we were on the same line and he's calling back in to push 3 to get on like i did. >> what's his phone number? >> thank you. i'll give you joe's phone number. joe, give me your number real fast.

>> his computer is unmuted still. >> caller: his phone number is 415-481-4623. >> he hasn't raised his hand yet. while we have time i want to thank the group. >> let me unmute him and he can have the remaining two and a half minutes. >> caller: thank you, sir. caller can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: great. thank you from that. i'll pick up from where kim left off and good afternoon commissioners. i want to reiterate what kim mentioned and highlight why this

project is so special. there's an incredible amount of community ownership and leadership part of the ownership of this store that spans city wide. and we're really a local business through and through from the grassroots up. our owners have been in the neighborhood in district for over 50 years and participated in lots of local events and organizations throughout their entire lives. can you move to slide five, please? this project is really a combination of home grown cannabis and entrepreneurs with a generation of city wide community leadership and anticipate in reflecting that in our store and aesthetic and the way we interact with the community and customers and the merchants. that in combination with really good operational protocols based

on two decade of cannabis operations experience i think really qualifies us to build something special that can really engage and work well within the community. part much that is bringing customers and bringing more foot traffic to the corridor to support local businesses. we'll be creating new jobs, more economic opportunity for local residents. we want to coordinate with local businesses in san francisco once covid is under control. there's going to be a need for a lot of partnership and support and coordination to try to get all the small businesses and merchants back on their feet and i think cannabis is a really important part of that effort. and based on the work we've done so far in the community we'll

need people to do that. and this makes the project unique compared to others in san francisco. we appreciate you hearing our project today and we hope that you will approve us. >> great. having heard from the public sponsor we should continue with general public comment.

go ahead caller. have you two minutes. >> caller: i just wanted to call in to say that i'm in support of this conditional use. i'm looking forward to working with mr. mitchell and staff on filling the wonderful positions they're having to be open. i want to thank sfet has been working and doing outreach and i'm support of this and thank you for your time.

i'm a resident at 1715 pier street. i wanted to provide my support for the conditional use of the cannabis storefront. i think it's important. i'm in independent development consultant and believe heavily in the medicinal and recreational use of marijuana. i think given it has been several years it's been appressed to have the ability to have a store in our neighborhood is important. i think it will bring new jobs.

and i'm hearing the other people that are making comments of concerns. i have not seen these concerns as i'm looking at these other places. and what the group is trying to do and bring it back to the neighborhood is laudable and i wanted to definitely provide my support and let the commissioner know that as a neighbor and residents of the neighborhood i'm in complete support of this project. thank you. >> caller:. i think i unmuted and i'm a resident that live at 1651 and our nearby next door at 1653 have a few concerns and would

like to kindly request you postpone the approval of the conditional use project until we made progress through the pandemic and a couple reasons for that. we're under a strict stay at home order and all working from home. construction noise would be extremely disruptive to our job and request you postpone this approval. we're also concerned about the parking. there's a significant amount of double parking that already occurs and we're concerns -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt but i believe you already submitted your testimony? you've already spoken to this matter expressing the same concerns. >> caller: sure. >> yes, i'm sorry we have to go to the next caller. thank you. >> caller: i'm a community organizer and in support of the project i want to speak on kim a

little bit. kim is working on other ways to continue to support the community. i know they have spoken about his coaching and working with the kids and i personally have had interaction with the work he has done in the community. i'm super excited he's expanding and going to reach out and be able to hopefully, help in different ways. the medical cannabis industry is exciting and reaching a new group and i'm in full support of the project as well. >> caller: this is quinton platt

a co-founder of the san francisco cannabis retailers alliance and a san francisco equity group and here to give my support and hope the commissioners do as well. i think the strength of character is mr. mitchell and the commitment to the community he's shown over the years speaks volumes with the strength of character behind everybody part of this application and the san francisco equity group and what they're doing to try and further the cause of equity in the cannabis space is equitable and i want to say thank you and please approve the project. thanks. >> caller: good afternoon, can you hear me? good afternoon commissioners.

i'm michael cohen secretary for the san francisco chapter of the democratic club and would like to speak in favor of mr. rece and mr. mitchell. i do know them and met them and listened to them speak and am confident they'll be a real addition to the neighborhood at 1649 divisadero street. i strongly support this dispensary and urge you to approve it. thank you so much. >> caller: hello, my name is lisa parker and in full support of this dispensary at 1649 divisadero street in san francisco. i support the project because the majority of the businesses

owned in san francisco are native projects and committed to hiring locally. they serve as non-profit leaders, advocates, artists and activists and have committed their lives to communities across the city. i'm in full support of this project. >> caller: my name is beth mcbride a maybe at 29 pierce fully in support of this project. i think the reasons are because of its support in equity and also the fact there's so many empty storefronts and i saw the progress and the space cleaned up and excited that we support local businesses with local residents. thank you for your time.

>> members of the public, last call for public comment in order to enter the queue press star then 3. we have a couple more callers. you have two minutes. >> caller: i'm a resident of san francisco. just a few blocks from the site and have been working with kim and joe and other groups for a number of years and in full support of this and i'll share a couple reasons quickly. one you've heard a lot about all the work they've done in the past for community but i can say first hand from sitting with this guys twice weekly now this too comes from the work that will come out of the project for the community.

they're serious about it and these are community people and fully committed to it and have a fully big plan here the business revitalization in that quarter is something and will add vibrancy to the area and in a time when businesses are important to get back on track. i'm in full support of this project.

>> caller: i support this. thank you for your time, commissioners. >> caller: hi, i'm john petit. i was born and raised in san francisco and support this because it helps with my insomnia and would appreciate it if it passed. thank you. >> caller: i'm calling to support the social equity

program. >> caller: my name is ashley and i live in san francisco. it would be helpful if the stores and i'm in full support for the store as i have two purchase a lot of cannabis for my grandparents and now won't have to go further than needed to help my grandparents. i'm in full support and think it will help the community a lot. thank you. >> caller: i live upstairs from the proposed procannabis -- cannabis store and against this for a few reasons. we all work from home right now and our office is our apartment

and there's a going to be construction and noise and already the block is crowded with people who are mentally ill and the block can be unsafe and my neighbors are single women and come home at certain hours. this block could have a line around the corner. it's not something i want downstairs. also the odor for me living upstairs and there's a lot of double parkers. it's a hospital area. i'm all for cannabis and many many reasons but i'm not for living upstairs from it. thank you.

>> caller: i'm opposed of kim mitchell ostensibly and has been helping with the community and serving the community, passing out toys and bikes from hunters point to the fillmore. i'm in favor to help him for whatever he needs. thank you. >> commissioners, that will conclude public comment on the matter. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> i have a question for the project sponsor in the manner of the community outreach.

i'm curious to know how the virtual public hearing went. >> it went well. we had about 20 participants, 15 or 20. everyone was in support. we definitely got the invitation out to as many folks as possible. we actually went way over and above to ensure everyone within a 300-foot radius got a letter with the zoom call instructions. we really -- we presented to the community a little bit longer than today and an extensive question and answer segment. >> because there's callers from the residents upstairs. were they also around and did you get to identify the community liaison in that public

meeting? >> i established myself as a liaison for the project. we just got in contact we with the upstairs residents within the last 48 hours. in that time we provided them with an overview of our safety and security plan and our odor mitigation plan. i asked for an e-mail to provide the full plans which combined to about 15 pages. our odor mitigation plan is osha certified that has three filters, it's a robust solution for oatdor control and somethin we anticipate not being a problem. as far as safety and security goes, there's a lot of data to show vacant storefronts are much more dangerous than cannabis storefronts and crime rates go

down when cannabis businesses move in the neighborhood. that combined with our commitment to the community and the fact we know the community, we're not outsiders here. we literally know these neighborhoods and have an open door to working with them to make sure we have the best plan possible. the cannabis ordinance used to require the community outreach program before the hearing. now we do it after. and so we're going to be doing another outreach campaign in the neighborhood where we'll good over our good neighbor policy to address the safety and security plans and all these things and we absolutely welcome and want everyone who is interested in being part of that conversation to join us in that >> good to hear. it's also informed with other community members especially

people who live upstairs or knowing sounds like they were only from the last 48 hours. [aud [audio difficulties] we wanted to engage as much as possible but they didn't reach reach out until 48 hours ago.

>> when it comes to the commission and grateful they have support but when it comes to the commission what matters first is nearby residents living close to your vicinity. i'd like to remind you in terms of community outreach you need to have the trust of the residents. for something that's security and the odor plan should have been presented before. that's my comment. >> commissioner moore.

>> my questions were answered by commissioner imperial. thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> i no longer have a question. >> a comment from me it's warming to see this strongly supported project with that many people in the community and that many years preventing youth violence and trying to look out there are the city's greater good. we'll see more vacant storefronts from here on out. i don't know how many but these are almost the only businesses we're seeing success right now. i'm glad we can pair she's successful businesses with equity to promote a more sustainable city. >> commissioner moore.

>> i made a motion to approve the condition. >> second. >> a request to speak from commissioners, there's a motion that has basketbaeen seconded t approve the motion with conditions. [roll call] so moved it moves us to item 13. a conditional use authorization.

staff are you prepared to make a presentation? >> good afternoon, planning department staff. item is a conditional use authorization according to plan code section to allow single-family unit and a construction of a building at 224 and 228 claro street measuring approximately 13,000 gross square feet. and the project does not include off-street vehicle parking. it's been vacant since september 2018. there's no evidence of evictions on the property. to date, the department has received one phone call from the residents at 236 claro street

regarding the proposal of blocking the property line window and received information on the shadow impact to the roof guidelines and requesting a construction agreement to protect the building and belongings. in terms of the outreach, the project sponsor hosted one application meeting on june 11, 2019. in addition, the project sponsor reached out to the market community action network and culture heritage district. no feedback was received to date. in addition, san francisco inclusionary housing program requires new residential projects of 10 or more units to pay an affordable housing fee. [no audio] on or off site. the project proposed a total of nine residential units.

the department recommends the project includes the units to 10 to ensure participation in the inclusion housing program and finds it consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the plan is consistent with the developing pattern and in line with the character and the project does provide eight new units with easy access to the city's transit network. it supports the neighborhood with eight of the nine units containing two bedrooms. the department also finds the project be necessary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental and the project sponsor team is here with a presentation and is available

for question. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, thank you. >> you're slides are up and have you five minutes. >> can we get 10 for this? we'll try to do it quicker. >> president koppel, what say you? >> we'll go with five but we'll likely have questions so likely get the full time. >> good afternoon, commissioners, on behalf of the project sponsor. the project proposes to demolish the one-bedroom house and build a five-story nine-unit residential building with one, one bedroom and eight with two units. and recent construction has been

small units not suitable for families and or accessible from transit and walk distance to employment sites. and we decided to replace parking spaces with a dwelling unit to maximize the dwelling units in the project. they're much needed particularly to two-bedroom units in the neighborhood and allowed us to eliminate the two curb cuts and a more inviting streetscape with greenery. the planning staff has raised the issue of dwelling units to build a 10-unit project. we can provide more in response to questions but the addition of the disruptive backing making corruption expensive and leaving

insufficient room for reasonable ceiling heights and would eliminate family-sized units. a lot of the construction recently has been smaller units. in addition, the building's been constructed to minimize space for circulation and maximize space for between you'll -- units we reached out and followed up this weekend and haven't received feedback and have been working with neighbors on both sides of the project and will continue to work with them during permitting and construction. i would now turn the presentation over and ask you to unmute the architect to run through the design. thank you for your time today.

>> with you were advised we would only unmute one bern -- person for the presentation. >> caller: i was told. >> you were explicitly told we would not do that. >> good afternoon commissioners. can we have the next slide. this is the site. this is the site plan showing our proposed building what you cab see on the left side matches some of the property line windows on the existing building.

san francisco is exposed of many unique neighborhood architectures. in soma the building types are prominent feature of the landscape. the unique characteristic of the facade and like other parts of the city. with southern exposure wanting to maximize interior light, we've been interested in shading. this is a view of 224 clairo. clara. the lobby is two feet below the sidewalk. these are the shades.

this is the ground floor plan with the lobby which goes down two feet from the sidewalk, bicycle parking and a unit which is on the rear of the property in relevance to the yard. this is the second level floor plan. a typical floor plan and a few things we'd like to point out. access to the units is directly from the elevator. and other hallways and the available square feet is for usable space and this is what you can see which matches the windows of the property line of the adjacent building. >> that's your time for the

presentation. commissioners. we should take you need to submit your testimony by pressing star and 3 by entering the queue. i do see a couple callers. members of the public you have two minutes. >> >> caller: i'm brian young and represent the hoa from the neighboring building directly affects by the construction of the new building. we are provisionally supportive of the project but we have specific and they're documented and we're concerned about the

costs and the disruption that is going to be caused by the mandatory window reconstruction. and it necessitated partial covering from a set of windows and would draw the symmetry of the interiors. yesterday the attorney said they had a group to realign the width of the light well and a believe the architect stated those were now lined up so the central windows affected by that lightwell would not have to be reconstructed. that's a positive development but again we'd like to see that formalized before we support the project.

and thirdly and lastly, we got some security and privacy concerns around roof access as it materially affects access to one of the private decks and access to our roof. so we want to understand the use of that roof on the new construction and make sure that our security and privacy concerns are addressed and that is the only big unknown that we have right now. all the other concerns seem to be taken care of in a compromised solution but again we want to see -- >> that's your time. >> caller: hi, i'm a resident at 236 clara and seconded everything my neighbor previously expressed.

we too are excited with the development of the property especially right now the current state is there are security issues currently but we too are looking to work with the current architect and the developer to come up with a reasonable solution. it would be impacted by calls covering up our window so we're not in favor of the current design but look to work with the current plan. that's all. thank you. >> members of the public last call to submit your testimony on this matter. press star then 3. caller caller you have two minutes. >> caller: it seems like it's part of the general plan and i would also advocate you try to

include more affordable units and [indiscernible] overall. >> commissioners, that concludes public comment. the matter is now before you. commissioner moore. >> in recognition of the beautifully designed project i'd like to make a couple comments. do you know the circumstance in which where the project occurs? my concerns are the few sites we have in san francisco in family zones should be looked at in the context in which the project occurs. and i would agree with staff and agree with public comment that

an increased density on this particular side would indeed be more in keeping with what our charge as commissioners really is. we need to look for opportunities for densification and we have the authority to really put a little bit more scrutiny on the project in a way that will high the bar. my very big question would be that we are looking for a scheme that adds more units and for that reason contributes towards affordable housing which is a responsibility which is extremely important to me. further to this, the neighborhoods concerns about light wells and neighbors' concerns about access and security including the modification of the amount of windows, if i understand that

correctly, i would like to see be involved and more informed because what we're seeing today may not necessarily address the concerns being raised. and in principle i'm in support of the project but believe it requires more work than what i believe we can condition today to ask for changes. i personally would ask we ask for continuance and further work. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you, president koppel and for comments, commissioner moore. my concern is the number of units. again, this is in a family zone and though it doesn't have yet zoning controls the family zone indicate or dictates the

guidelines for what the family zone should be. and one of the main reasons is the affordable housing. it has actually it has a higher requirement and that is 15%. i'm disappointed that it's only nine units and [indiscernible] requirement. i would support continuance where there'll be a higher percentage of household requirement in here. i would support that continuance. those are my comments. >> commissioner diamond. >> i would appreciate it if the architect would go into significantly more detail regarding the department's

request that you consider increasing from nine to 10 and why that is so challenging. i heard reference to stacking of units and loss of efficiency but i am interested in a more detailed explanation why it's challenging for you. >> could we look at slide 16? one of the constraints is height limit and to get the units we had to sink the building two feet down and have eight-foot ceiling heights and that helps

mitigate the condition. all the units stack directly over each other and we don't need to track any plumbing across the ceilings. but changing the layout we'd need to lower the ceiling to accommodate plumbing and we don't have the space to do it within this height limit. if we go to the next slide, what i've pointed out before is there's actually no circulation. if we were to divide one of these areas into two units, we would need to clear a hallway occupying 200 square feet of usable floor area which is the size of a nice bedroom. in our exploration to create more units we found it's self-defe

self-defeating and there's many units available in the marketplace and much fewer of the two-bed remember units we think can be occupied by a family. so in trying to accommodate a diversity of unit times and to provide bigger and more family-oriented units, we think this optimizes the opportunity on the site. >> with the same constraints exist if you put divided the two-bedroom unit on the ground floor over to two one-bedroom units so you can have access from the lobby to the individual units and how would that affect would you still have the same stacking problem and could you excavate further down to avoid the height constraint problem? >> the difficulty of excavating further down is getting down in the space. you can see the ramp that

switches back which is already occupying the full width. we would be consuming more space because it has to be an accessible entry. in terms of the ability you would need two means of egress. you still need a hall way to connect to two ways to get out of the units. we'd still be losing the 200 square foot actually more in that case. >> okay. commissioners, we have a rule we're dealing with that says 10 units. i think it's incumbent on us as the planning department has suggested to explore with the architect and developer whether it's possible when you're at a nine unit building to get an extra unit in to get the

affordable housing requirement and felt they thought it through and doesn't seem very feasible. i would be in favor of approving the project as is at nine units. my only concern is how they continue to work -- how we document the requirement to work with the neighboring property to address their concerns? i do have a question for staff. this project is subject to the housing accountability act, is that correct and if so, how many hearings have we held and how many are left? >> this is a fully co-compliant project. it will be subject to housing accountability act. and this is the third time because the previous two times have been continued. if the project is continued we'll have two more hearings. >> is there a way to propose a

condition that deals with the issues of the adjacent neighbor and the need to address those? >> i think it's possible to add a condition stating the project sponsor continue work the adjacent property on the issue. >> so then commissioners, i would move to prove the project subject with the nine-unit subject to the additional condition suggested by staff. >> second. thank you, commissioner diamond for addressing those issues. i was looking at those items as well. i appreciate the questions and i would like to hear from commissioner tannen. >> thank you. i -- commissioner tanner. >> i wanted to ask about the

light well can you speak if it's accurate or a change you're willing to make to the project? >> could we put up slide 30? this is before the discussion we had yesterday. what we managed to do, you can see the dotted line which is our light well. we've actually managed and were proposing if you go to slide 31 to actually transfer the corner. there's a six-inch setback of the property line of our building. we would not be affecting the second window but we have agreed

to adjust our light wells likely so it clears the window. that was the one issue that i think was brought up. >> and the plans would need to be updated or request a change in the light well. is that something that can be done with the motion made? >> we can add conditions of approval to include these minor changes of the design. >> great. can the project sponsor can address concerns about security. >> go back it slide number 30. essentially the dotted line is

our rooftop which you can see the drop which is the deck next door. the setback is five foot and enclosed from the neighboring property. but what would be possible and it's only accessible to occupants of that building. it's very limited the chance of stranger jumping over into somebody else's property. there could be a railing that would further limit that possibility. i'm sure that's something where we can reach an agreement about if that's something they would want. >> great. and understanding the issue and i share commissioner moore and commissioner imperial's

sentiment of seeing can we get to 10 units to have affordability built in. i think the project's done an exceptional job thinking about one bedroom to accommodate individuals and that's wonderful. has there been thought to other units with more units and explain the thought in not seeking additional [indiscernible] >> the project sponsor is committed to building this and has the funding in plis and doesn't want to extend where he is now in terms of a bigger project. the project is something i'm

confident that will get built starting early next year. i think from all of us, it's critical to keep professionals and construction people working. at this scale, we know we can get it built next year. >> thank you very much for your comments. with that in mind, as much as i would want to see the affordable housing in this project, given the efforts that have gone into it and where the project sponsor is with what they want to see i would support the motion made to approve the project. >> commissioner moore. >> i thought the idea about house density is a good one ain

age density is a good one and density is a good one and i believe is the appropriate role for this particular site and it's not family housing. it may be family-sized housing and the layout of the units are not conducive of families. there's no storage space or privacy. it is basically aesthetically beautiful layout however, what we need is something slightly different. perhaps the addition of additional units such as a density bonus project or other tools the city provides for gentrification being rejected and for that reason i will not be able to support the project. >> commissioner chan. >> to -- i want to ask the project sponsor questions. do you know if it's rental or ownership?

>> i'm in the sure. the owner is on the call but i don't know if he's decided whether he's going to be selling some and renting some or what exactly the project's going to be. i think it may be a combination of some rental, some for sale. >> and maybe someone can answer that before i move on to the next question. >> i'd like to point out there is a lot of storage in the units. on both sides of the stairs there's extensive storage. as well as a commodious kitchen. >> can you go through the

interior design and wondering the architect can describe how he designed the units with family in mind. >> can we have a floor plan? basically, this is the storage along here and the washer, dryer, this is storage and storage. this is the master suite area and then this is the second bedroom over here. the second bedroom gets light access from the light well. you think of the way plumbing fixtures typically are they're essential because where the body is most closely connected to

architecture. these seem like large fixtures almost like toilets and sinks turned into a whole room and this is the kitchen area with a work desk and then the cook top area and storage with a pantry area. >> thank you for that. also describe the community outreach you did were there follow-up calls. i want to understand >> jody did a lot of community outreach and if we can get her to answer that, i think it would be appropriate. jody, can you talk? >> i can. i reached out to the neighborhood groups by e-mail. again we reached out over the summer and then i reached out

again this week. david wu and some responded over the summer and said he'd review the plan and let me know if he had comments and i didn't get comments back and i reached out again this week and didn't hear anything back. in terms of the immediate neighbors, we had a mix of phone calls and e-mails to address the designish us and win doze and construction concerns. there's been security issues on that street. it's one of the reasons we think it will be beneficial to have additional housing units there and have one of the things we didn't quite get to was the project will propose a large glass front lobby to provide a good connection between the building and street. we'll continue to work with neighbors during construction and permitting and again we're happy to continue to work with the neighbors at 236 clara.

i think we're pretty much there with the windows and just need to form allies that as part of the condition and happy to do that and being able to work with them further. >> thank you. the question is is this the right project and it could be out of touch depending on the context and zoning. it does strike me the project is located in the south of market around family district which came from years of our planning process and now overlaying which is necessary as a commission to

recognize that and understand the intent of that. and bring you this proposal. i would like to see the provision to expand affordable housing unit for youth and families. those are some of my comments. i would be supportive of continuing if there's a way to have creative bold think of adding more density but at the moment the project is not quite sitting well with me. >> commissioner fung. >> it appears the primary issue with the project has been weather it reaches the threshold for inclusionary or not. i saw the staff comment on that

and did not know whether they pursued it further in terms of what the impact would be to try to get an additional unit. i took a look at it myself in terms of the plans and understanding their program for the type of two-bedroom units which are relatively small but given the fact that they don't have the traditional hallways using them efficiently. it appears the one area that may be able to get the additional unit may be the ground floor. however, if you look at that and in order to be able to get the

space mentioned you wind up with the ability to put two units there on the ground floor but they'd be 300 odd feet which then creates units that doesn't do much for the qualitative district zoning wants to be. i'm prepared to support the project as it is and move it forward and get it built. >> would it be possible for the project sponsor to say something. >> we don't have a question here. >> i'm going to call on commissioner tanner next. >> thank you. i'm going to turn my video off. my bandwidth's a little low.

can you hear is the >> yes, commissioner. >> great. the question i wanted to ask to maybe pose to fellow commissioners is building on commissioner fung's point it seems like outside of a density plan within the boundaries of the envelope for this building if there were to be an on the ground floor to smaller units while not providing family housing would both provide overall the building would need to provide on site inclusionary units or inclusionary affordable housing and units that might be appropriate for an individual who preferred a smaller unit. would that be something if that came back commissioners were to support and i'm concerned that if we did continue to give clear direction of what we're expecting to see come back. while the density bonus would be

avid maybe that may not be desirable for the project sponsor in terms of what they can afford to build and essentially taller my not be within the project sponsors appetite. curious about the idea of the smaller ground floor units may be amenable to the commission were it to return. >> commissioner diamond. >> if we did find it acceptable to have the two smaller units that it creates a floor to ceiling hite -- height because change the floor plan of the floor changes the stacking. maybe i'm misunderstanding but

i'd appreciate if the architect can respond to that. >> we aren't avoiding trying to do a below market grade unit. he's willing to provide one of the units in the current plan as a below market rate unit. >> you're willing to keep it as a nine unit but willing to have one of the nune -- nine units below market. >> that's correct and to have two-unit bedrooms and there's such a flood of tiny units in san francisco. we can talk about family units.

there's an opportunity for families to live in. and so we would rather give an additional family type of unit and as a below market grade unit rather than tiny units. >> how do we address that and still be able to approve the project today if that's what we wanted to do? >> sorry, my camera is not functioning but i'm with you though you can't see me. can you summarize exactly what it is you wanted me to address because the question's kind of gone back and forth a little bit here.

>> they're willing to offer one unit as a below market rate unit and how can we capture that to approve the project today? >> normally we don't put that as a condition but finding and if the final motion adopted and can be described in the finding as something that the project author has volunteered as part ef the project proposal here. generally speaking it wouldn't be included as one of the conditions of approval. >> okay. thank you. i have a question then for the project sponsor's attorney. indicate which unit you are proposing and your thoughts how you would want that included in the finding? >> ly -- >> currently the one-bedroom unit is large and could

potentially be two-bedroom and 840 square feet. that would be a middle-income unit and we can enter into a voluntary agreement as a b.m.r. unit. >> commissioners, i'd be willing to accept that offer and would amend my motion to there was other interest from the other commissioners and so approving it today but including the voluntary inclusion of the one bedroom as a b.m.r. in the findings. >> commissioner diamond, i would add we had this in the past voluntary contribution of a below market rate unit and believe there was discussion that there's no binding

mechanism to have that exist after the project is approved. [please stand by]

or selling it for. if it's rental or owner, because that matters. >> he mentioned median income.

>> did you have any more comments, commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: no, i wanted to ask if that was a question that he is searching on. i heard them mention median income and that is not level of affordability. so i personally -- that an additional unit has been offered up. it would be have to be at a different income level in order for me to fulfill what is needed here. >> okay. >> commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i would follow in the point, that if ms. knight could say what percentage of ami that you are considering middle income? is it 80%, what is the level?

what is your specific level that you are saying when you say middle? >> so, obviously, this would not technically be under the b.m.r. program because it's not 10 units, but our proposal is to comply with the middle income, so the rental would be 110, ownership would be 130 and the units would be subject to under the b.m.r. program. ta >> commissioner tanner: are you aware if this is rental or owner? or is that undecided? >> we don't know yet. one of the thing you see is getting housing in a pretty uncertain world right now. what we're focused on is providing something that will work in the market, so that's why we don't know yet. >> okay. thank you.

>> i guess i just wonder if we need, then, commissioner diamond, to amend your motion to have the specifics that mr. su crest has suggested about the unit findings? >> i would like to amend the motion to include those specifics. m do you want to articulate back to us so we're all on the same page? >> happy to. as i understand the project sponsor has volunteered one of the units to be subject to the city's inclusionary affordable housing program as defined in 415 of the planning code. this unit would be based on the 110ami for rental or 130 for

owner. and then the other condition we heard was that the commission would like us to work with the adjacent neighbors on the definition and size of the wells relative to the windows and the property to the west. >> thank you. the only thing i didn't hear you mention is that the project sponsor's office was for the one bedroom unit. >> correct. >> so as articulated about mr. sucre that is the motion that i would like the commission to consider. >> and i'm okay with those amendments as the seconder. >> jonas: very good. commissioners, if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended to include a condition that the

sponsor continue working with staff on neighborhood concerns regarding the light well and roof deck access adding a finding recognizing that the sponsor has volunteered the one bedroom unit as a b.m.r. unit at 110ami if rented and 130 if sold to a future owner. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner chan: no. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> commissioner moore: no. >> president koppel: aye. >> so moved, that motion passes 4-3 with commissioners chan, imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us on item 14 for case number

2020, 3407 geary boulevard. this is a conditional use authorization. >> commissioner diamond: yes, commissioners, i live, my house is located within 500 feet of this project that is proposed, so i would like your permission to recuse myself from this deliberation? >> i will accept a motion. you are recused, commissioner diamond. so moved. >> move to recuse commissioner diamond. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president koppel: >> aartaye. so moved. that passes 7-0. commissioner diamond, you have

10 days to submit that recusal form to the ethics commission. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303, 739 to establish approximately 1,219 square foot cannabis retail use, dba, canna club, within the geary boulevard ncd. the project is on the ground floor of an existing two-story mixed use building. the tenant space is currently occupied by a restaurant. the staff correctly reported that the restaurant closed in

2019. there will be no expansion of the store front modifications proposed. no on site vaporizing of cannabis products is proposed. signage will be applied for under a different permit. the town hall was attended by one person from the association. topics raised by the public were parking, security, theft and banking options for cannabis businesses. the project sponsor also contacted 16 groups from the city's registered neighborhood group list in the presidio height and inner richmond area and was invited to attend two neighborhood meetings. in addition, the project sponsor circulated a petition for the project which garnered 110 signatures. the department has received eight messages in support and six in opposition. the support for the project mentioned convenience and

accessibility. confidence in the project security plan. positive contributions of an equity-owned cannabis. the support for the good-neighbor policy. the project sponsor's character. and the lack of odor concerns because there is no consumption. opposition said there were two preschools near the project site. concerns that children would walk by the business. the possibility that they will have amplified music and advertised by the location on columbus avenue and the health risk of second hand smoke. find that it's consistent with the objectives and policy of the general plan of the project will activate a vacant store front, provide access to product and increase retail options in the area. they find the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood and not detrimental to persons and properties in the vicinity. this includes the staff presentation. the project sponsor is here and has a presentation. we're here to answer any questions. >> clara, i don't see the project sponsor with their name or the phone number that they provided for their presentation. is there another person that i should be looking for? >> i will -- let's see. >> jonas: she provided the e-mail, sarah at gmail, i see neither of those in the attendee list. to unmute. the project sponsor, if you are

listening, press star then 3 and you can added to the queue. when we get to you under public comment, you can make your presentation at that time or if you join us, i guess, let us know. let's go to public comment given that the project sponsor is not here. members of the public, you have two minutes. >> i actually suffer from severe migraines. and cannabis is one of the only ways that is able to help me relieve that pain. i'm actually a resident within that neighborhood and i actually support this project. thank you. >> hello. i'm a project sponsor. this is henry chan. i'm sorry, we called from a different phone number so i guess you didn't recognize the phone. >> jonas: you have five minutes. >> thank you very much.

good afternoon, i'm the equity applicant and the sponsor on the project. i have worked in the cannabis industry since 2009, but over a decade of experience. i currently manage and operate a cannabis delivery service in the bay area. i'm here today seeking your permission for approval on this project. i believe with your approval, i can apply my knowledge and experience to build a better community together. with further ado, i'll let the community license present our slide presentation. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you for being patient with our technical difficulties. it looks like i am signed on now. hopefully, we're doing this correct. good afternoon, san francisco planning commissioners, staff and guests of the hearing. i'm the committee liaison. i want to thank you for your consideration of canna club. we're here today for a conditional use authorization

for cannabis retail dispensary. we're seeking to operate in the inner richmond at 3407 geary boulevard. it was designed to help individuals who have been impacted by the war on drugs and mr. chan has met these equality qualifications. he is the father of two and has worked in the cannabis industry since 2009. initially, he cultivated for store front in san francisco, but gained experience at working at a micro business at manager for cultivation and delivery. canna club's location is proposed at 3407 geary in the inner richmond. there are public transit stops at eastbound geary lines at

stanyan and parker and westbound lines across the street at commonwealth avenue. slide five is an architectural image of the exterior of the dispensary. slide 6 is an image of the interior rendering of the dispensary. slide 7 is the proposed floor plan. slide 8, we believe that having canna club as a neighbor is a number of benefits. including full-time living wage jobs in san francisco. we're fortunate cannabis has been declared essential. it is estimated that canna club will serve between 150 and 250 visitors daily who will likely patronize nearby businesses and we'll enhance neighborhood security as we'll have indoor and outdoor surveillance systems, outsidelighting and a

security officer. slide 9, the pandemic has limited the normal outreach method, including hosting a town hall or in-person neighborhood group meeting. but despite these restrictions, canna club took the following measures. we drafted this frequently asked questions brochure that you see here. it included information about the equity program, biography of the owner, information on location, parking enforcement, as well as odor controls. the brochure also had a town hall via zoom that took place on september 19 at 6 p.m. in addition, the outreach we did included attending neighborhood meetings by haight ash bury

neighborhood council. we signed up as paid members of the following non-profit organizations, the housing rights committee of san francisco, and the planning association for the richmond. we collected letters of support as well as digital petitions for a total of 110 signatures. we did a neighborhood walk through inviting people to the meeting and introducing the owner and applicant. we got to know small businesses and managers in the neighborhood by making purchases at businesses. canna club reached out to the following organizations on slide 11 and slide 12. you'll see 16 organizations listed in the inner richmond and the presidio heights. and slide 13, i want to thank you for your consideration of canna club. we urge you to vote in favor of the application.

and we look -- i'm sorry geary boulevard, and we look forward to working with the community as we will continue to be working on our good-neighbor policy and we look forward to serving you. >> thank you, commissioners, having heard from the project sponsor, we cannot continue with the public comment. >> good afternoon. i am in favor of canna club. i am an operator in the space as well. i've worked with these operators. and they have great with me and they're advocates -- i'm a big advocate for equity applicants, especially the way they operate with their experience. i believe if approved they will be operating in line with the values of the industry and the stakeholders around. thank you.

>> hi, my name is tammy fong. i am a native of san francisco. i strongly support the social equity program for 3407 geary boulevard. i need a cannabis retailer near me due to my anxiety disorder that pretty much -- me. therefore, i ask that you also support this program. thank you. >> hi. my name is john.

i have sleep apnea, so i needed help with cannabis and i hope you support the cannabis on geary street. much appreciated. >> hi, i am a manager at nearby restaurant. and i do need cannabis to help me with my muscle pain, so i strongly support canna club. thank you. >> hi, commissioners, i am a mother with a young child who lives and works in the area. i strongly support the store front that brings jobs into our neighborhood. thank you. >> go ahead, caller.

>> hi, my name is candace. i live in the area and i suffer from chronic back pain, so i think having access to dispensary close by would be really beneficial. yeah, thank you for your time. >> hello? >> yes. hello, my name is regina. i live in the area. i am a single mother. my child is 10 years old. i have been educating her about pro and conof cannabis. i believe in early education and

i strongly support the application for the cannabis retail store at 3407 geary, because it will enhance the neighborhood which has been destroyed through this pandemic. i would like to see this area become safe and vibrant. thank you. >> hi, my name is margaret. i live in the area. in fact, i was born and raised here and came back years later and am raising my own daughter here. i'm a single parent. i'm against this building because i don't think it's appropriate for this very heavily family focused area. my block commonwealth faces straight on to where the retail location will be and children and their families walk quite a bit to the local restaurants. they will be walking by the

cannabis retailer. there will be increased exposure and normalization of cannabis for the youth and i don't think it's appropriate for such a heavily family area. also, one more point. i never received any notice. i am within 300 yards apparently because i got a notice from the planning commission. i would have stepped up and said something. and also i noticed in a list of outreach, that jordan park neighborhood association which the facing street to the retailer is a part of, was not among the list of those discussed. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael. and i am secretary of the democratic club here in san francisco. i am very much in support of the 3407 geary dispensary.

and for a number of reasons. one, that neighborhood that will provide access for people who truly are in need of relief with their pain issues, et cetera. and it also will have very good security. and excellent -- it's going to be an equity program as well. so i support the canna club and urge you to approve it. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me? >> we can. >> thank you. this is david goldman again from the brownie merry democratic club. i'm speaking on behalf of canna club. i strongly support their application. i know henry chan very well and he is a fine person to be running the dispensary. he's done things to promote and

get neighborhood support. this neighborhood needs access to cannabis. i urge you strongly to support it. thank you. >> would you like to submit your public comment? >> yes, my name is melanie and i was born and raised in san francisco. i'm a mother of two and i suffer from depression and the one thing that i've been able to find to work for me is cannabis. i fully support this project because i need something that is closer in the neighborhood for me since i have my two kids that i do have watch at the moment. so i would like to fully support -- i'll be in full support of canna club. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is

chester. i work in the neighborhood and i'm calling in to fully support the project and the social equity program. thank you. goo >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a native here in san francisco, still reside here currently. one of which includes early childhood education. i am a parent and also two children that are born and raised in the city as well. i believe in early education in cannabis is important because of the decriminalization and the importance of living a positive and socially acceptable neighborhoods, so i fully support this project. thank you so much.

>> hello? my name is michael. i work at sfmta. i've known henry over 30 years. he's a good friend of mine. i'm calling today to show my support for his project. henry is an honest guy with a good work ethic and his family volunteers throughout the city. i believe henry would be a good fit for the project and asset to the inner richmond community. i urge you to approve this project, thank you. >> hi, my name is henry. i live in the neighborhood. and i'm a strongly support project. and thank you very much. >> hello, commissioners.

can you hear me? >> jonas: yes, we can hear you. >> my name is alvin. i have a sleep disorder and some chronic pain and am in complete support of the canna club opening. thank you for understanding. >> hi, my name is dan. i was born in san francisco. i also strongly support the social equity program. i do need cannabis to help with my shoulder and neck pain. i also ask you to support the project, too. thank you. >> hello? hi, my name is dennis wong. i am owner of the building and

business is my family restaurant business. i want to give the social equity at my location at 3407 geary and opportunity to have the neighborhood and the people who -- i strongly support this business. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ray. i strongly support the social equity program and this shop will be a very safe addition to the neighborhood. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is tony. father of three kids. i live in the neighborhood and strongly support the social equity program. i need cannabis to help with my

pain at night. it's very important this program is going to be supported. appreciate it. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is pablo. i live in the neighborhood and i'm a father of a teenager. i want to support the program and the benefit that it will provide to the community. thank you for your consideration. >> caller, did you want to submit your public comment? okay, that was the second opportunity for you. commissioners, that concludes public -- well, i should make one last call to members of the public to press star, then 3 to enter the queue to submit your testimony on this matter.

and, of course, we have late comers. go ahead, caller. >> good afternoon. my name is lynn fong and i'm calling to givemy support for henry and his application at 3407 geary. i was born and raised in the richmond district and currently live a block away. five years ago i was diagnosed with ptsd and because of cannabis, i've been off ssris for two years now. i think this would be great addition to the neighborhood. i strongly support this project. thank you for your time. >> hi, my name is julie. i am san franciscan -- san francisco native. i am a mother of a young child as well as a rehab nurse. and i am in strong support of this project for -- i've seen,

you know, my patients benefit greatly from their pain from their insomnia and other issues that they may have that helps with cannabis use. my partner also suffers from chronic insomnia and i found that with the cannabis use, this has helped him tremendously. and i just strongly urge you to support this project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carlos. thank you for the opportunity to speak. this issue is very personal to me. i have lived in san francisco for 46 years since 1975. in 1985, i experienced a very disturbing and traumatizing event when i was arrested as a youth for marijuana possession which was later dropped for the illegal search and seizure. at the age of 18, i joined the u.s. army, served three years

and was honorably discharged, but was diagnosed with ptsd. after that, i attended city college, became a social worker, helped at juvenile hall. i was executive director for three non-profits here in san francisco. as a social equity applicant, i strongly support the program and research has shown these types of businesses help revitalize the neighborhood they're in and has created a reduction in blight and crime as well. i would like to add this is not about the money for the business. it's really about providing an opportunity to those who were wrongly incarcerated and it's about creating jobs and opportunities. and it's also about being a good neighbor to revitalize this corridor, especially retail spaces which are extreme blight

in all of san francisco really. finally, as a disabled vet, i urge the commission to support this application. thank you so much. >> hello, commissioners. hello? >> yes, we're listening. >> okay, my name is -- i strongly support the social equity program. i live in the neighborhood. i have chronic pain and i remember the cannabis. i strongly support this project. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. commissioners, that will conclude public comment on this matter. and it is now before you. >> commissioner moore: i have a quick question for ms. phinney. could you help me clarify -- i have problems with my video --

could you help me clarify, is it a name coincidence? a few months ago we had a project by a similar name, almost the same name on 899 columbus avenue. is this the same applicant? is this the same company or how do i understand this? >> yes. i believe they are affiliated. >> commissioner moore: what is affiliat affiliated, if i might ask? >> i might defer to henry and sara on that, but i believe they're part of the same business entity. >> commissioner moore: could i ask the applicant or his representative to answer that question for me, please? >> jonas: i'm sorry. if the project sponsor can provide me with their phone

number, i can try to find you and unmute you. well, i guess they can't -- [laughter] sorry. so you'll have to press star and 3 again to get into the queue to raise your hand so we can recognize you. >> commissioner moore: while we're waiting, could you answer for me a question i have raised in another commission hearing. if you're an equity applicant, how many applications can you submit? >> i do not know that number. >> commissioner moore: but it is more than one? >> so, okay, so i have confirmation that the 899 columbus was the same -- was also henry chan, so that is another branch of his business. equity applicants are allowed to

apply for and have multiple locations. >> commissioner moore: does anybody know how many? i'm just wondering, what equity meanses to me, sometimes we hear a lot of people are standing in line to get approval and if one person can get two approvals in a relatively short time, i would like this direct that question back our expert at the cannabis center there and ask them, how that really lines up racial equity that we're struggling with on another level. that is just a question i would like to pose for the rest of the commission as well. i'm very impressed by the support that this applicant is receiving from the community, particularly in this location. and i would like to hear what everybody else thinks. >> jonas: commissioner moore, i have unmuted someone who called

in and raised their hand. for whatever reason, the platform is not recognizing a microphone on whatever way you've entered the hearing, so i don't know if -- >> can you hear me on this phone? >> jonas: yes, we can. i have my hand raised. i just wanted to respond related to the second location. the logo and the name may look familiar to a number of the commissioners because henry was part of another project in north beach a few months ago. that project decided they were going to do a name change. they decided a better fit for the neighborhood would be more of an italian name fort north beach. so canna club is not going to be a name at that first location. because henry had already been involved with the project where he had drafted the logo and chosen a name, he decided to use that name for his second

location. the first location he had a number of partners. this one, he is the owner and the applicant for the project. so this is a venture where he's trying to do things independently without the venture capital that he had with the first project. >> commissioner moore: appreciate that explanation. thank you so much. >> commissioner fung: question for ms. feeney. one of the e-mails from one of the neighbors brought forth that there is relatively new school within a couple of store fronts of this. do you want to respond to that issue? >> yes, so, thank you for asking that. the rules for location of cannabis businesses in the city and dispensaries say they cannot be within 600 feet of schools, which is defined as a k-12

school. there are preschools that are closer to this location. there are not k-12 schools. >> commissioner fung: so the preschools don't count then under that definition. and i believe the other school that is a k-12 is slightly outside the 600 feet? >> yes. the other school is -- it's 660 feet away. and it is roosevelt middle school. >> commissioner fung: thank you. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'm following up also on the one e-mail we got that regarding about the cafe where it will be located. it was vacant approximately last

2019, but the thai cafe still exists. >> so using city records and google street view, i incorrectly determined that the cafe was closed. it is still open and will be closing for this new business. >> do you know when they will be closed and when this business will be opened? i'm just interested in terms of like what -- >> i'm not sure. i believe -- i think the property owner called in earlier that the restaurant maybe is. so it may be part of him moving out of the restaurant. in kind of the next phase. >> commissioner imperial: okay. i mean, i'm glad to hear there is community support on this.

and it's widely supported. again, in our -- one of the provisions to ensure there is no displacement of a store or a retail service. again, we don't know the whole story. i'm not sure about what is going on, but that's kind of alarming to hear that one store will be closed to open a new cannabis dispensary. but at this point, i also would like to share the sentiment with commissioner moore when we look into the cannabis retails and ask if there are going to be medical cannabis that will be formalized into cannabis retail by next year, we really need to look into the racial and social equity and the question of the equity applicants needs to be -- it may not be in our department, but it's something for the city

as well to look into, so that we are ensuring that the cannabis, or the equity applicant, is actually the one that is asked what the eligibility right now and not taking advantage of other venture capitalists. i just want to give that as a comment, but as of now, i am supportive of this, but i hope in the future i'd like this see more when it comes to one store being displaced by another cannabis. that we also need to look into that and have that information in front of us. >> commissioner, may i address your question a bit about the equity component. >> commissioner imperial: sure. >> with the equity applicants, there isn't necessarily a limit on the number of businesses, but when an equity applicant achieves a level of net worth, they're no longer qualified as

an equity applicant. so if mr. chan does an amazing job and his two businesses thrive, he will be unable to do a third one because he will not have that level of income, where right now he's still below the income requirements. >> i see, yeah. perhaps maybe it's more for me to do more research on the eligibility. but i hope in the future, can we have that information in our documents? >> certainly. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i just wanted to second the items that commissioner imperial was mentioning. in particular daylighting the existence of the information about the equity applicants. i think for many people we've heard in the public testimony say really for both of the cannabis applications, who is running these stores has been a primary focus of the city's

policy and a reason why some of these locations are braced. i think having transparency and a window into that through the planning process is helpful for the commissioners, but helpful for the public. the hearings are a focal point and can be a place to not just provide information that is relevant to the project, but really to the whole cannabis industry that is burgeoning in san francisco. so i want to thank you for your work ms. feeney and for the project sponsors bringing this project. it's great to see the business expanding and the equity applicant being able to invest in his own business. so really i think a success story for the cannabis program. were we ever able to get the project sponsor on the phone again? >> we were. did you have another question? >> i did. i was curious about the living wages, if there is wage that will be -- [indiscernible] --

>> so they've got a strong echo for some reason. >> i hear that. so perhaps i'll just note that is information that to me is again one of the benefits of these uses, paying living wages, but it's also a phrase that can mean different amounts to different folks. so i was curious to know that. if we're not able to get that information, that's fine, but something i'm interested to see and know. >> is that a motion? >> commissioner tanner: sure. i would move that we would approve the project as proposed by staff. >> commissioner moore: second. >> jonas: seeing no further deliberation from commissioners, there is a motion that has been

seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president koppel: aye. >> jonas: so moved, commissioners, that passes unanimously. 6-0. commissioners that places us under the discretionary review fort final item on today's agen agenda, number 15, 2018-9883. 473 diamond street. this is discretionary review. mr. winslow, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, can you hear me? >> jonas: we can hear you, yes. >> very good.

then thank you. good afternoon, president koppel, vice president moore and commissioners. staff architect. before you is a public request for discretionary review of building permit application, 2019-0829.0257 to construct a 445 square foot 4th story vertical addition and horizontal rear addition to the second and third floors of a project. the project would include approximately eight feet of excavation below grade resulting in 146 cubic yards of soil disturbance. the d.r. requester, resident of the property to the north of the proposed project is concerned that the proposal is not

compliant with the residential design guidelines related to the height and depth of the building and the scale, as well as articulating it minimizes impact to light, privacy of the adjacent properties. remove or reduce the rear decks. the department's review of this proposal confirms support of the massing of this code conforming project as it does conform to the guidelines and responded to recommendations to limit the additions and the extent of the additions to the rear as well as providing setbacks from the side property lines. however, staff deems there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances present and that minor modifications are appropriate to consider in relation to the fourth floor debt due to its prominence with respect to privacy issues and recommend reducing it to be no

more than three feet deep. staff recommends taking discretionary review with that modification. this concludes my presentation and i'm available to answer questions. thank you. >> jonas: thank you, mr. winslow. before we take the d.r. requester. i misspoke. we have one more item after this. i apologize. so i can simply -- need to find who the d.r. requester is here. mr. prior it appears. okay, mr. prior, you have five minutes. >> hello, commissioners. thank you very much for hearing me. my name is prior, resident of

569 diamond directly north of the project at 573. i want to open by pointing out that the discretionary review analysis, the public comment section states that only one neighbor is opposed. the planning commission -- the planning department received multiple objections after the plan for 573 was mailed out in early september. a total of four neighbors for the $655. you can hear from them during the public comment period. another pertinent error is the description of it being 100 feet deep. according to the map, it's 105 feet deep. let me be clear. we're not objecting to stop any construction or on general principles of changes to the

good 'ole days of the neighborhood. i'd be a fool to object to a $4 million house next door. these objections are based on a fear of property values being reduc reduced. or objections are based on the san francisco residential guidelines design and scale to be compatible, maintain lighting to adjacent properties, and maintaining privacy. can we move on to page 2? virtually all of the properties on the block have been renovated in the last 25 years and have maintained the central block of open space. this gives a wide open feel to the gardens. the rebuild that the current owners did a few years ago pushed the envelope the furthest.

[indiscernible] this will then become the standard for the remainder of the block. we are at a former lot and we'll end up in a tunnel. 10 years ago the planning department limited the additions done to the next house to the north, 565 diamond, to approximately six feet deep beyond what our property is. so we would be limited. this will reduce the value of the 569 diamond as it's always going to be in a tunnel with no direct for the house and the good part of the lot for a month or so in mid summer. we're also questioning the proposed -- backyard. zoning administrators rh-2 has a basic rear yard requirement of 45% of the lot. even with the caveats and traditions, the intent is clear, it's to maintain 45% backyard.

in this case, the total lot with 10-foot setback is 105 and that would be a rear yard of 47 feet. the proposed one is 39 feet. page 3, please. another shot. this is current conditions. and you notice that the houses are all pretty much in line. page 4, please. in addition to the property being in a dark tunnel, there is substantial investment in the garden that we will be losing. this photograph and page 5, please, show the area that will be in permanent shadows for 10 or more months a year. this will have a direct impact on the resale value of 569.

page 6, please. the north elevation of 573 shows the very sensitive upper floor decks. obviously meant to further extend the living space. the decks look directly into the bedroom windows of 569 and 577 diamond and directly down into the bedroom and bathroom skylights of 577 diamond. it's going to be reminiscent of the upper deck looking down below. this is directly in the surrounding house. it will also affect the resale value of 565 and 583, because they're the next houses on either side. i believe several residents on the block have sent letters of rejection regarding this.

-- objection regarding this. for resolution, we're hoping that the upper story decks be substancely reduced. as the house was substantially enlarged in the last 10 years, adding another floor and using -- >> jonas: that's your time. thank you. you will have a two-minute rebuttal. sir? that is your time. >> thank you for your -- >> jonas: is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? >> i am. >> jonas: okay, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so i think, although our addition looks imposing on the site plan and this is what the d.r. requester is focusing on and the description seems tall, i'm going to demonstrate that in real life perspective, the project has a much lower impact

and much of the expansion is in the topography. it demonstrates that the permitted two story rear yard, and that it really only extends 11 feet above the existing rear yard and behaves more like a single-story addition. second slide shows a section through the extension with the shared fence on the right and the hedge that grows over the fence. as you can see, the two-story addition extends a little less than three feet above the fence and coincides with the height of the hedge.

[please stand by]

>> reductions we've made to th. next slide. reductions to the third floor. next slide shows reductions we've made to the flowrnl flowr. we have full planning support and believe we're in alignment with planning guidelines. we don't agree there are extraordinary circumstances here. we understand there are certains of privacy by the decks. we'll take into consideration of the roof deck of no more than

three feet as requested. we'rthat concludes my presentat. >> thank you. hearing from both we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star then three. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm sorry. my name is peter cleary. we have lived on diamond street for many years. the problem is the multi level decks really provide the owners with views into all the nearby

neighbors gardens and bedrooms. the owner can look down on the neighbors. it destroys the privacy that the neighbors have and have an expectation for. could you at the minimum require these privacy destroying multi level decks eliminate them completely thank you very much. >> my wife and i have been owners since 1985, i have a number of objections to the project. i'll be brief on the first three. we're concerned about the removal of the cubic yards of soil along with removal of retaining walls and would like to see a geo technical report to

make sure there's no issue it the neighboring property. the second is water. when we have construction that digs under water here underground streams have been revealed here. water comes rushing downhill which is where we are. the rear yard open space sm the. the lots on this property are deeper cut out the end lots including ours. of the seven of the nine properties had major renovations in the last decades none have removed the foot print of the property.

we don'torit don't object to ths but it's the pushing back and they are going to lose all the backyard open space if the larger properties move back. thank you. >> i live directly to the south of this project. i agree an second what the other neighbors have already said. it's going to cause a massive-i

don't object to the project but i do object to the character and how they are going about doing this. first of all i think it has an out side impact to myself who live directly next door. they have grossly ignored our request and been quite combative and receptive when showing these photos. the biggest problem i have is the open space. i purchased my house next door to them because of the open space behind us. it gives the feeling of living next to a park. i think it's extremely unique in the city. them putting the massive singular building pushing back into the open space and adding

so many decks really really impacts my privacy and gives them a viewing platform into my bedroom among other places into my house and makes me feel a bit like an animal on display. overall i really hope you can see the effects the light and privacy and the open space. we're not asking for them to stop their project but it's been really unfortunate seeing the images they've shown you and the deceptiveness from the project. i hope that you don't approve this version of their project and we will have a chance to work with them in the future such that we all can enjoy living in our houses.

>> go ahead caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony. okay. if not that concludes public comment. we should go back to the requester for a two minute rebuttal. >> sorry. i wasn't expecting that. the objections that we have are based on property values.

we're worried about having this large block in the middle of the block and it will destroy our views and will destroy our privacy. that's my argument. >> okay. if that concludes your rebuttal, we should go to the project sponsor. >> okay. i'm just going to go through a list of some of the things that were brought up. regarding the decks and the privacy. we get that and understand that we're willing to make reductions as planning requests for the upper deck. with the lower deck we're

to provide reports from engineers. there were things brought up about cooperation. we've been working on this project for over a year. we were basically quite willing to cooperate. i do have an e-mail exchange showing that the dr request shut down proper communication before the variance that we had back in

june. we've been very open. we've never tried to ignore communication. we tried to pursue it but that venue didn't seem to be what they wanted. i'm going to address open space. i think i've demonstrated that the permitted projections are two story projections it's really absorbed into the topography. it's being represented as this big looming extension. in reality it behaves like a single story extension. it's not shadowing anyone. it's not causing any tunneling. i think as far as the deception goes-my reputation on the line as this is accurate. >> sir, that is your time.

thank you. commissioners, there is a-there are now two more additional persons requesting to submit their public comment. we should take them now. go ahead caller. >okay, caller. this is the third time i've unmuted you. are you prepared to submit your public comment. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm the property owner of diamond street along with my husband. my two young children are looking to stay in the home- >> if you're the public sponsor, your time to speak was during

rebuttal. we'll take the next caller. >> i would just like to say that the slope of the hill exaggerates the height of the impact on us since we are downhill- >> have you already submitted public comment. >> i'm sorry i thought i could- >> no. you can't. >> okay. commissioners. that concludes presentations and public comment on this matter. it is now before you. >> thank you for regulating all the incoming callers. i'm in support of staff recommendation. >> second. >> i wish i could make a motion commissioner but i'm the only

one that is not permitted to do so. let me call on commissioner moore first. >> i'm with staff's recommendation and move to approve. >> second. i can do that. >> seeing no one else to speak. there's a motion that has been seconded. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. seven to zero. now places us on your final item on today's agenda. for item no. 3.

that was pulled off of consent. case number 218. the conditional use authorization. is staff prepare today make their presentation? >> i am. can you hear me? >> i can. the floor is yours. >> planning department staff. the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to install a new mobility macro wireless facility in parcel four 991 cal trans right of way. the project includes installation of a new wireless facility on a 70-foot tall eukaryotic lip tuesday.

much of the opposition expressed is in regards to health concerns, rf exposure and decrease in property value. a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code

section to allow a wireless tele communication facility into the p and c disowning district. if they find it's unbalanced citing guidelines and the objecteddive and policies of the general plans sm th plans. the project will protect by providing communication services. the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation and the sponsor is also available to speak on the project. thank you.

>> sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? let me see if i can-actually, i can't. mr. turner, for whatever reason, the system isn't recognizing your microphone. have you called in? do you have a phone number? let me see. >> project sponsor are you now prepared to make your presentation?

>> good afternoon commissioners. director of external affairs. thank you for the opportunity to present this project which is to replace a current site we have at the russia house that will serve highway 101 as well as the surrounding area. the first responder net work. as she expressed from a public safety standpoint it's an important site to the city of san francisco. it will improve communication services for commuters along highway 101. it's always at&t's goal to limit visual impact. the project manager has a

presentation for you. we also have on the line our net work engineer and they can answer any questions about the net work or exposure concerns. thank you and we hope for your approval. >> this is mr. turner working with at&t on this site. i think the slide presentation is pulled up here thvment i her. it's pretty spotty and minimal. if you can go to the next slide, you can see the upgraded site and the coverage would be considerably stronger for the surrounding area. in the next slide, can you see the overall site plan. swre thwe have the equipment are

to the street fenced in with green flaps to blend in to the environment. we have the eucalyptus tree halfway up the bank. it's not super close to the highway or the road. planning made the determination for the location of the tower. we have given them say on where we put the tower. on the next slide can you see the elevations. it's just above the tree line of the current area. we have proposed adding three trees kind of surrounding the area with foliage to help make it less intruce toif th intrusi.

can you see the proposed eucalyptus that would be above the tree line. the next slide, you can see from the highway. driving 101 north. the next slide you can see the proposed. it would blend in with the same colors and topography of the surrounding area. the next slide you can see from the parking lot. adjacent to the site. the next slide you can see the proposed and the tree that we propose blends into the area and it vowne surrounded by other eucalyptus trees that will help it blend in. thank you for your time.

>> great. thank you. members of the public this is your opportunity to make public comment. you have two minutes. go ahead caller. >> caller are you prepared to submit your public comment? >> okay. we'll take the next caller. >> i'm a member of the coalition. a trail that walks through the city of san francisco. i'm in opposition to this project because this area on this corner of the city has a

really wonder diversity of plants. eucalyptus trees crowd out. it's not good for our local ecology. i'm in favor of this idea of increasing cell phone coverage because i believe it's an equity issue. but i hope you choose something other than a eucalyptus tree. it will preserve the ecology for years to come. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. press star and three to be entered into the queue. okay. go ahead caller. >> my name-i'm a member of

association who lives nearby. [indiscernible]. we are in strong opposition of this. why there are other better locations. like on top of the hill or further down south of the park. instead it has to stay close so much of the residents there. i hope can you consider and ask at&t to change their plan and push it south. negative impact we never had much chance to give at&t feedback. thank you. >> hello? can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i'm the managing director of

u.s. operation. my company owns the office building and the land in san francisco. we strongly oppose the installation of the at&t tower. we're going to-[indiscernible]. the impact lost to our property value is close proximity close to the tower of our property. if the tower is installed. the office building and the unit will be directly across from the proposed tower. our residential tenant target market of high end users will be

significantly diminished. abstracted view. in addition to the foregoing the cell tower fires and health concerns from considering our property if the tower is buildup. on behalf of my company and myself. we respectfully request the planning commission for at&t to consider other locations. we hope to get your positive consideration. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public. last call for public comment. commissioners seeing no a

additional requests to speak public comment is now closed and the matter is now before you. >> i' i wonder if staff could tk about adding the eucalyptus tree. this is a fake eucalyptus right? >> the trees we proposed. we were proposing trees in general. there's no specific trees suggested yet. >> okay. another question for staff is could you describe to us. there's a preference location system in where this is on the

preference list of sites. >> citing in public locations there's no structure on the parcel. this is why it presented a tree. >> thank you on that motion to approve this matter with conditions. >> (roll call). >> that motion passes

unanimously and concludes your second to last hearing of the year. >> adjourned. >> thank you. >> bye everybody.

>> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013

season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r

together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role

models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first

season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning

>> clerk: on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19, and on may 29, 2020, the mayor authorized all commissions to reconvene remotely. this will be our 12th remote hearing. remote hearings require everyone's attention, and most of all, your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turnoff your camera. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for every item on today's agenda. public comment is available by calling