hearing our last hearing of the year. on february 25th the mayor declared a state of emergency.

reveen remotely through the shelter in place. congratulations commissioners. remote hearings are moa-turn off your camera and mute if you are not speaking. we have streaming this hearing live. we will receive public hearing on today's agenda. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking on you can press star two. each speaker will be allowed to three minutes.

when you have thirty seconds remining you will hear a chime. please speak clearly and slowly. i will take roll at this time. >> (roll call) par pa. >> first on your agenda we have a discretionary review at the time of issuance was proposed for continuance to january 14th

but now being proposed to january 7th as long as it remains on your consent calendar. eyitem two a discretionary revi. it's proposed for continuancance to february 112021. tconditional use is indefinite continuance. further commissioners under your regular calendar your agenda today has gotten significantly shorter. item 11 for one conditional use

authorization is proposed to february 18th 2021. the large project authorization is proposed for continuance for january 21. we should open up public comment. members of the public this is opportunity to speak for matter proposed for continuance. by pressing star 13. commissioners, i apologize. february 11 for item two is a cancelled hearing. we need to change that to

february 18th, commissioners. so item two is going to februar. thank you for that reminder. again, members of the public this is your opportunity to speak for the matter proposed for continuance. i do have one member of the public requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners . can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> on behalf of the project sponsor, we've agreed to the proposed continuance. i disbruf just wanted to make tk points. this is being requested to discuss the project with the supervisor's office and talk

about how we can address their concerns. while we're doing that the project response r i sponsor isx hundred thousand dollars each month. weecwe've worked very hard with staff over many months. there many pending with the proposal our proposed served as a precedent. we ask that staff work with us to address these issues quickly. we appreciate the length of the continuance. we urge that it be kept at february 18 and we'll get right to work addressing concerns. >> okay . last call for the matters called to be continued.

seeing no additional calls. public comment is closed. an the matter is now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to continue items as scheduled. >> second. >> great. that's items continued as proposed. >> (roll call). >> so moved that motion passes unanimously. the acting administrator could

you please act on item 3b. >> we'll continue item 3b indefinitely. >> thank you. commissioners that will place us on your consent calendar. we have one item on consent. that matter is considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be called by a single roll call vote. there is no discussion on matter unless there's a request. item five.

a conditional use authorization. seeing no requests to speak from the public if there are no requests to pull this off of consent the matter is now before you. >> move the approval of the lot split. >> second. >> (roll call). >> so moved that passes

unanimously. members of the public if you would like to speak to the minutes. please press star three to be entered into the queue. >> this is georgia, on the general public comment on that day when i mentioned the marry brown study when i sent the slides you were kind enough to show. the revival homes. i may have mentioned that they should have been viewed as well as preservation but my point was about that specific stall. if you could change those words i would appreciate it. thank you so much. >> thank you. we can certainly make that amendment. seeing no other request it speak

to the minutes. the public comment is closed. they are now before you. >> move to adopt the minutes with the amendments. >> adopt the minutes as will be amended. >> (loroll call (. >> so moved. that passes unanimously. item seven. comments. >> i wanted to start off by sa saying wow. what a year. we started off with a new director, and building. we conducted 32 virtual hearings

which is astounding to me. i want to thank everyone for helping us get. we addressed our racial and equity solutions in our department. and we will continue that momentum as soon as we start kicking off next year as well. the public. thanks for tuning in with us. we're going through the same situation as you are in at home. we're all living virtually. thanks again for all your paition . i wanyourpatience. thank you for all the staff. i also do want to take a

acceptate minute to thank someone who has stepped up and literately made this whole year possible. is he not a commissioner. he has acted like one and stepped up. only president's will know what a task it is to conduct a hearing. jonas has juggled all the public comments and calendar. he has single ha handedly came through. personal thank thanks out to hi. take this time-take a couple weeks and be safe and enjoy your holidays and we'll be back soon for 2021 and looking forward to

it. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you. you so well summarized my feelings. we will miss the christmas party. we miss seeing your babies and everybody else. miss seeing you. this is the first seeing your new digs which none of us have been in. these are certainly strange times. at least we have the media. i do want to echo your feelings p and thank jonas he has done an amazing job. i hope nb c is not going to take him away. he is a message carrier and made

it easy for us to make a light hearted functioning meeting. thanks or our commissioner and our longer tenure. it's been a great year. we all muster circumstances that make it harder to really communicate because we are virtual. you have done a good job. i appreciate the diversity and the strength and i have learned a lot. thanks to everybody. happy holidays. happy holidays to the public listening to today's meeting. >> okay. if there are no further questions to speak from commissioners. thank you for those kind words. i can't reiterate enough how

much the team behind me is to make that happen. that will put us on item eight. >> thank you for those words again. it's amazing you all have been willing to jump into take on major issues during extremely challenging times for us all. thank you for continuing to push and major policy issues and equity around housing and economic recovery. it's been a challenging year. you've all shown we have to continue to push on the challenges we face. so thank you. i want to note something we talked about earlier before. the meeting you may have seen, the instructions or articles on the instructions.

the mayor's office has asked us to come to them with a seven and a half general fund reduction. and two and a half contingency. we'll be coming to you and have a series of meetings of the commission one january 21, so next month we'll start to talk to you about that. we have the general fund reduction to deal with as well as the impact that we're seeing.

they all seem to have horizontal and vertical expansions and change on the facade. they usually raise the original house off of the foundation. they have extensive full lot excavations. carbon karexcavations. they have an inefficient use of space ancillary living space. the ground are sub ter arian levels. as a second unit kitchen. if there's been a second unit to be approved. they have to keep it. they try to take care of the

policy. most of these are speck projects. they are flipped upon completion or the entitlements are sold midway. none of these were review by the commission. the demo either not provide to the staff readily. we have to ask for two or three pdrs or are often adjusted during the work of the project. but they don't cross the threshold. what happens. it's lost at the site. in the neighborhood and in the city. that was had a i said back in twenty four tean when i started this adventure in this. i think they lead to increased development pressure.

>> members of the public. last call. commissioners i have no additional members flt public requesting to speak at this time. general public comment is closed. we can move onto your regular calendar.

>> what you see on the screen is the layout. it involves two lots. also in the picture is just a general layout of where the existing below grade play area is. the project also is requesting tnal use authorization for four seventy eight twenty seventh

avenue. a c u is also requested for development lot size.

>> the five units which fronts onto 27th avenue. the parcel labeled b is a play ground-existing play ground next to the church. the existing play ground about ten feet below street level. it's a sunken area, not the most desirable area around. next slide, please. this is what the proposed senior housing would look like.

it's a building that matches the character of the existing neighborhood. we're very proud of the fact that we try to be good neighbors and backing onto this project is an 18 unit senior housing project that is a separate physical rich land billing. if you drove by it you would never know it was an 18 unit building. we've taken great care to plan into the neighborhood. the building itself at the ground level utility spaces and because of the difference in elevations we will have the ability to drive through this building to the subterrain yan parking. we get one bonus senior adu on the rear facing yard. we have one bedroom and two

three bedroom senior unit. the existing buildings in the maybe hood and the senior housing would be available to everybody on a first come first serve basis. next slide, please. returning to the slide showing the architectural of the unit. i want to look at b which is the existing play yard. next slide, please. what we would do is raise the existing

>> members of the public will have two minutes to speak. >> did you take slide show down? >> it's still up. >> caller are you prepared to submit your testimony? >> hello. yes i'm prepared. my name is perfect mr. thompson. i live in the neighborhood close to the church and bookstore. i'd like to point out that on the weekends saturday night and sunday morningsings it's very difficult to find on street parking for those of us that live in the neighborhood. i would be supportive of the projectth. on street parking faces off the

street for those that are a tenning the church. it creates a problem for those of news the neighborhood. it would be a win win for both the church community and local residents an businesses in the neighborhood. the restaurants in the neighborhood that hopefully with covid goes away we'll be attracting the normal clientele from the normal neighborhood. it's a win win for the community. voice my support for this project. >> hi. i'm calling in support of this project. my mother-in-law who has lived in san francisco since the late

forties and she is now over ninety years old and no longer able to live in her own house in sun set. instead she moved into existing senior housing. this allowed her to live near a church that allows her to hear bells. where she is comfortable and safely receive visitors. i hope you approve this project. and let the church build more senior housing to serve our aging population. >> hello, can you hear me? >> we can. >> i'm the principal of st. john's academy. it's located on the church property. we have been functioning on the church property for 27 years. we're looking forward to having

the play area raised to street level. currently the play area we use monday through friday when school is in session and students are on campus is sunk below street level. i ask that you approve this project. >> i am living in pacific. i attend church every week covid restrictions permitting. i have two children, four, and two. we're expecting our third baby.

>> i'm a resident in san francisco. i'm a member of the holly virgin community. i sing in the choir at least two plus times a week. it's absolutely necessary that we have additional parking available so i can attend

services without being tardy due to finding a place to park. i'm a member of the organizing committee i built the 18 units on 26th avenue. this project has been an outstanding success for our senior community. two thirds of our community are of the community i ask that you please approve the additional five units so we can continue to serve our aging populous in san francisco. thank you very much. >> hello. i'm greek orthodox. if the project sponsors can work out additional parking for all the church members to be able to attend. that would be great. i'm hoping they can do that. i'm also hoping that these

additional five units would be accessible to people of low and fixed income. thank you. >> hello. i'm president of the community services. the seven is that serves seniors throughout the district in san francisco and sus set district. we serve over two hundred maless a day. parking is a challenge for making our delivery. if anything done to increase parking in the area would help us deliver those meal it the seniors. those that don't live close have expressed they would like to live closer to the area. makes our deliveries more

efficient and better for our seniors. thank you so much. >> caller are you prepared to submit your testimony. >> yes. >> go ahead. you may want to mute you're commuter or television. >> sorry. repeat. >> go ahead. ma'am. you have two minutes. >> hello? >> yes. >> you're going to let me know when i can speak? >> now would be the opportunity to speak, ma'am. >> i'm the president of the russian americans. we are the national organization and have the voice of the russian americans. we're head quartered in san

francisco. i feel especially that we can represent the russian community here. we feel it's imperative to have a senior housing project built year the church. most of these seniors were there to build the church in the sixties. i think it's imperative that you build for this per permit and ey the parking structure as well. thank you for this opportunity to speak. >> hi. i work at st. john's academy. the school next to the potential parking lot structure. providing underground parking would really help the neighborhood for on street parking . i've been commuting to the school for 17 years and worked there for the last seven

years and finding parking has been such a struggle . the entire project sounds wonderful an would help seniors and neighbors like all of us. please approve this project. >> okay. members of the public. last call for public comment. press star then three to be entered into the queue. commissioners i see no members of the public requests to speak at this time. public comment is closed. and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner diamond. >> i think this is a wonderful project. it has so many features to benefit not only the seniors but

the community. kudos to the koich. ichurch.it takes a lot to put ta project like this. i move to approve. >> second. >> i'm also supportive of the project. the community benefits are substantial. we hope it gets implemented as soon as possible. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i'm generally supportive of this project. i do have one question out of curiosity regarding the senior housing. i'm wondering either the five proposed unit dollars. there were 18 units senior housing. can you talk more about the

senior housing whether-it is something out to the public as well. >> am i unmuted? the housing is open to all . the 18 units is two thirds are par ish ners. one third from people out side. we have three or four people that are section eight. we reach out to the community and try to be good neighbors to everybody. it's open to all. >> the five units i assume will be pulled out in the lottery system. >> it will be open to all. >> thank you very much. i'm also in supportive. the play area will be raised to street level.

i would second the motion. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm in support of the project. i would hope that if possible that other churches find solutions like this. it's on this level where small amounts of housing is ties to the purpose of community and community gathering as this one. i very much appreciate all persons who weighed in and i'm in strong support of this project. >> commissioner tanne tanner. >> i think this is the type of project i hope we can see more off. both in terms of the scale, making smart use of the space.

help the students and the community and the seen years. it's well thought out and executed project. having projects of this scale throughout the city will enhance our neighborhoods, i look forward to more ways of following the lead of this safe community. >> thank you commissioners. seeing no additional requests for commissioners to comment. there is a motion that has been seconded. >> n (roll call).

>> you need to acknowledge

>> at the october 1st, 2020 hearing the pla plan allow and e drives of the existing and expanded loading and transit vehicle conditions on ocean avenue to prepare a section drawing of the garage and to

operating with 5:00 am time and it was also continued to allow for additional outreach to the neighbors and supervisor yee's office. a memo to the commission has been provided to respond to these items. in regards to ocean avenue loading, the engineer firm to deal with sfmta increasing loading available to the proposed project. failed drawings show the existing condition and the proposal to add a second 40-foot four-inch long accessible loading area on ocean avenue. last thursday of the sponsored and sfmta staff again, and prior

to the october 1st hearing, to the commission a letter with recommended conditions of approval to be included with the project approval. the product sponsor has a written response from the supervisor and is in agreement to the request of conditions except for the request for the project to establish a tax and a phased approach to increasing the number of patients served and their defenses within their written response. should the commission chose to amend the projects by adopting any of the conditions of approval, recommended by supervisor yee, staff pro pairs a summary of the conditions of approval that currently exist in the draft motion and new conditions of approval that provide the supervisor's recommendations in a implementable and enforceable manner to summarize these to address the proposed conditions, to adequately address issues of

proper the department recommends a revision made to a condition avenue approval requiring a driveway loading and operations plan and the language proposed in the memo would replace the condition of approval as written in the draft motion and the main difference would be the addition of a requirement for community engagement with the drafting of the plan. also, the request to ensure continued engage outreach with the neighbors that the draft motion and it requires a product response to could maintain a communitily say on focommunitile the let tore establish a phased approach to increasing the number of patient served it

would be difficult if not infeasible for planning staff to monitor and enforce and and the controlling of the installation of the and the assignment of the dedicated attempt dedicated attendance to support traffic flow and patient boarding and off boarding of par transit vehicles and includes conditions of approval number 14 and this condition will go into the record during my presentation at the october first hearing and and you and six months veilation and one year report the department recommends a conditions of approval for the operator to report and traffic and loading conditions regardless of a requirement that this could be added in regardless of whether the

requirement for the facilities and phase in and medical chair be adopted. there was additional items to also be discussed and per and of the garage. the exterior height limit of 8 feet two inches it was reduced to and the clearance made it seem feasible for a vehicle tuesday a parking structure based on the typical height of e vehicles. regards to facade improvements

the project sponsor stated the building owner has agreed to retain the facade of the building and provide a landscaping at the entry and the sponsor feels this will help freshen up the appearance of the building and a tenant will provide signage under separate permit. in regards to the operational start time the product sponsor allow them to get the first patient in the clinic and also noted the existing facility also currently operates at 5:00 a.m. and they have an existing modifications using that time also an updated draft and the operations plan. the ocean avenue homeowners association sent the commissioners an e-mail with the final comments on the project

and without outstanding concerns on the hours of operations and seeking assurances on the timing and monitoring of traffic improvements and with this, this is my update and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you mr. horn. the system is not recognizing a microphone and into the hearing and i see, there you go and and yeah, you are going to need to meet your computer or your phone and you have three minutes.

you are not audible and if you are on my end. >> can you hear me? >> we can now. >> there was some technical problems here. ok, should i give a short presentation? >> your time is running. >> ok. so, thank you, commissioners, for hearing my case and mr. horn said this is a clinic we're proposing we have we met with the neighbors to alleviate the concerns. one of the concerns of the size is traffic.

we've engaged a civil engineer in the area to look at a potential way that we can increase loading air to allow the paratransit vehicles to park on ocean avenue and not block traffic which has been the main issue with the existing clinic that is operating at 1728 ocean avenue. >> that's all i have for my presentation. >> ok. if that concludes sponsors' presentation, we should go to public comment members of the public, this is your opportunity to address this matter we have several callers and you will have each one minute.

>> caller: my name is shirley lena and i just wanted to make a correction on jeffrey horn's statement the e-mail was representing the h.o.a. which is the 26 residents that are above the project and as of last night, there hasn't been an agreement on two items and i wanted to bring those up. so in order for us to be happy, safe and operational, we need one, a decline on the 5:00 a.m. start time. the hours of operation include should be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. through four units that face ocean avenue and a 5:00 a.m. time is not feasible for residents trying to sleep because the vans backing up make loud beeping sounds. at first they needed a 5:00 a.m. because people would allow for traffic to not stack up but traffic running eastbound on ocean during the morning,

there's no traffic running web and the sign it's on and we'd like to make sure that ocean avenue -- >> that's your time. >> hi, my name peter tam. i would understand that with the intention of the approval and the incorporation and of a revocation due for violation of conditions on the same notes that were incorporated into a project at 276,516th street 276t and implementation of this project result in complaints from interested property owners,

residents and commercial uses which are not resolved by the project sponsor and found to be in violation of the planning code and the specific conditions of approval for the project as set fourth in exhibit a of this motion and to zone administrator shall refer such complaints to the commission which it may hold a public hearing on the matter to consider rev ovation of this authorization. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is david bloomingfeld and one of the major concerns outside of traffic and pedestrian safety is the hours of operation. the proposal is from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. while it seems the permitted hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. 6:00 a.m. is too early and 5:00 a.m. is way too early and even now the clinic operates outside the hours it's supposed to several mornings each week. i hear the vans pulling up even

prior to 4:30 in the morning and vans sit in front of the clinic and idle for long periods of time. if they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing now, what assurances do we have that they will operate only asper mighted if approved? i'm also concerned about the proposal for temporary generator mentioned in the detail of the project and i don't know why that would be necessary but it's a noise issue. i ask that the commission ve consider the recommendation for approval and make sure that everything is in order and questions and issues regarding with the writing prior to a commission vote on this matter. thank you. >> last call for public comment. if you would like to speak to this matter press star and three. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public

comment is closed and the matter is before you. >> >> i have a question, how do you plan on addressing specifically the loud noises coming out of the vehicle if they're backing up at each an early hour? >> yeah, think about this and unfortunately the back-up noise or the back-up sound is part of a regulation that they have to have the back up, the beeping when they back up. one of the thoughts is that, with the expanded area to park there's less need to do the backing up because the vehicles can space out a little bit better and pull in and pull backout. that was the thought is by creating additional space, perhaps that issue is mitigate

somewhat. >> question for staff. mr. horn, you mentioned the hiring of an engineer and that there has been another discussion with the m.t.a. where is that application? >> by application you mean some sort of permit for a review within m.t.a.? >> yes. so, that actually would be part of the permits review post entitlement by the commission. a lot of the conversations of sponsors having right now with

actively engaging with public works and sfmta, typically most projects get into these discussion and due to the (inaudible) and concern of the traffic at this facility, the sponsor started having those conversations up front with those other cities, departments, and so the permit that is on file with the project would most leaving planning department then move on to review part of the plan ship review with those agencies and at that time, the agencies, when we got to or they got to a point of a design being supported, any other permits that would be needed would be requested at that time be it some sort of encroachment permit or what sidewalk legislation to make alterations to the sidewalk and so all of those separate applications would happen at a

later date during the permit review. >> are you aware of any comments being made by those other agencies in these early meetings? >> are you supportive or are they killing it? >> last thursday's meeting i explicitly asked the senior transportation planner of m.t.a. to do support this potential design and this project and the answer was yes and that we're at a detailed level which is what the intent that have site would be to get kind of a fine grain detail of some geometry and what is actually on the ground out there for the engineer and m.t.a. to better understand what needs to be altered but over all, and this is initially stated in the letter back in june, that mta was in support of

a project at this location of the proposal. >> and since the sidewalk is under also d.p.w., did they say anything? >> they've been involved in many of these conversations and specifically the manager. it's been a level involvement in support of finding a resolution to the project. as i understand it, both agencies think there's a solution to be made and are somewhat fairly happy with the proposal as presented to them which is a separate bulb in which allows that light standards that supports the meeting line to stay in place where i believe the proposal back in october was expansion of the existing loading area which that resulted in a potential

relocation of that muni guide wire. it would have been's year. >> the existing one? >> the one that that light standard was occurring. >> right. it would have been a continuation of one, long -- >> yeah. >> just as a reminder, the new entrance to the building, to the facility is at the corner which happens to be closer to where the existing loading would be. >> understood. >> >> commissioner. >> i'm boulevard with the

operation hours because it says the operation hours five or driveway start at 5:00 a.m. or and then the operation starts at 6:00 a.m. so in that one hour interval i'm assuming they will park or hangout and operate the clinic and it's not open yet? i'm baffled by that. if there's something further? >> i think there's some confusion and they're seeking to again any operations of seeing patients at 5:00 a.m. and the ocean avenue commercial districts and permitted hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. so the sponsor from the commission to

start operations at that 5:00 a.m. so that extra hour of morning operations. >> i would like to hear other commissions and i understand the 5:00 a.m. sounds like it's to avoid the traffic but it can may create more noise to the residents surrounding residents as well. i would like to hear other commissioner's opinion on that. in terms of the conditions that are being presented to us by the staff, in terms of the six-month evaluation and having a report pack and installation of chairs as well and right, mr. child pornography? >> those are the conditions recommended bmr. chirp.>> it wof

these conditions in a way that we feel could be implemented by the department many of so to kind of find a way to control the patients and that conditions is written under immediate approval would be 24 which is what the existing facility next door has and seeking kind of a relief by the planning commission at a future date for that additional 12 chairs of the sponsors speaking those are obviously numbers that could be modified by the commission, if you chose to adopt that condition and see if it needs to be modified and further phasing every six years and more to begin with that could also be modified. >> i see. >> i'm ok with us being proposed

by supervisor yee, that's when we can also see whether it's a good facing and reduce it or add more and i'd like to hear what others say and especially on the operation hours. >> commissioner diamond. >> yes, i have a question for the project sponsor. i'd like to comment on the proposed language with regarding phasing and putting the (inaudible) to begin with. could you comment on how that might effect the operations? >> sorry, my audio broke up a little bit there. i think i understood the question to be how would the phasing effect the operations? >> yes, please. >> so -- >> and your business model. the financial viability of the operations? >> >> o, i'm with the architecture

firm that designed the interior tenant improvement so i can't speak too much to the business model but i know that talking with them, their anticipated growth over net growth for a year is 4% so you are talking about a few patients maybe six to eight patients over a year to year so they're moving into a bigger space and this is a lot of flexibility having some more chairs but i don't think that the idea is they're going to rush in 50% more patients in the first year. that's not part of the business model. >> are any of the businesspeople for the operation online or is it just you the architect? >> it's just me. unfortunately, with this remote system i'm not able to share the link so we're kind of constrained by that.

>> so commissioners, here are my thoughts and i am in favor of all of the conditions as drafted by staff to implement supervisor yee's suggestions except this phasing operation. the concept is generally ok with me in the absence of hearing anything to the contrary by the businesspeople, but they're moving into larger and larger space so i don't know that we should limit them to the same number of chairs as they currently have and i would be open to perhaps is starting with 30 years but i'm picking a random number. the other conditions are all fine with me and i'm very much opposed to the 5:00 a.m. start time. i believe it's inconsistent with a multi-use facility building that has residential and i would not be in favor of granting the

conditional use and the neighborhood district already permits. >> commissioner vaughn. >> this project seems like every meeting there's always questio questions. even those questions that were raised earlier, the responses are not very well done and they're not very specific many of as an example, if you want to make the position that the existing garage condition handle it, what they showed in terms of that cartoon, those sections, is not something a professional would do to put that will issue

away that it cannot be handled, similarly, it appears that both in terms of the opposition to the phased capacity issue and the hours of operations, seem to be driven by their ability to get more patients through a business day and i would be supportive in this particular use and i think that the ability to see whether they're really interested in mitigating some of their impacts, would need to be demonstrated over there course of their operations. i would support opening hours of 7:00 a.m. and a phased occupancy

as proposed by the supervisor, in addition to the other conditions as proposed. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you. i have a question for planning staff. could you explain for the 24 medical chairs number came from? addressing the language? >> >> jeff warren planning staff. the number 24 is coming from the intent of the supervisor's recommended conditions to have the existing level of operations be approved and then part of that is to see if the traffic improvements that are getting handled the existing conditions

so the 24 years and to what the facility next dor has which is 24 seats or 24 procedure stations. >> thank you, cut out a little bit. you mentioned it's to max the current neighboring facilities that has 24? >> that's correct. that's the amount of chairs the existing facility has. >> thank you, i just wanted to understand that number and if we do adjust it, kind of what rationale we would use. this is the life saving ability and use and this is a complicated location for this type of operation. i do think we want to recognize that this is a mixed commercial residential area and we hear there are units right above. you have this transit-rich area as well. i do think -- [please stand by]

>> commissioner chan: we are enabling growth of the facility. whether it's six chairs now or five, that's our part of the growth. then when we do have the six month and one year check-in and the ability to buy for further growth based on the check-ins, i think there's sufficient pressure on the applicant to encourage them to implement all the things they would implement to work with folks who are visiting and with their clients even to continue to have good operation and to make sure we see demonstrated changes here in this area. thank you.

>> vice president moore: in one sentence i'm in support of president yee's recommendation and with emphasis starting at six. that's a motion. >> president koppel, if the commission is going to consider phasing an approval here, i recommend that we clarify what that condition means by using the word may seek authorization. if that means it could be interpreted to mean that applicant would have to seek a new conditional use permit application or if the commission's intent is to allow those 12 additional chairs or

whatever the additional chairs would be to try to set up some objective standards so that it wouldn't go through a whole new conditional use permit process. it's not clear the way it's drafted now. >> president koppel: thank you very much for that guidance. that makes a lot of since. is commissioner moore okay with adjusting her motion? >> vice president moore: yes, i am. >> president koppel: i believe city attorney stacy is providing two alternatives. one is to authorize up to a certain number of chairs and require that the applicant come back for the additional chairs or she mentioned, sort of create

certain objective standards or thresholds that must be met in order for them to be able to increase the number of chairs. if i'm misstating that, city attorney, city stacy, correct me if i'm wrong. >> vice president moore: [indisc ernible] >> the intent, i think what the city attorney is point to is the use of the word authorization to release any additional chairs. the intention was not for new

application for conditional use authorization. making a determination on that report back. i don't know if i need guidance from the city attorney if that's the language she should be modified or if something more of a plan or report some sort of criteria should be the standard that the release of additional chairs to be based off of. >> if that's the commission's intent, then i would say that one year after the beginning of operations, the project sponsor may add 12 additional medical treatment chairs pending implementation of the traffic control programs and some sort

of verification that those traffic control plans and elements are working. i don't know if that would be a verification from sfmta or if the planning staff -- i guess may be one option might be for the planning staff to verify with the appropriate city agencies, sfmta, maybe public works, that the traffic control plan is working effectively and that you, planning staff will confirm that for the commission at a public hearing. does that sound like what the commission intends or are you looking for more planning commission input on that

determination? >> vice president moore: other people do want to weigh in on that question. because it would still modify the motion. >> if i heard that correct, city attorney stacy, the proposed amendment would be to add a condition that after one year the facility may add 12 additional chairs pending verification by staff that the transportation plan is effective and reported to the commission at an informational update hearing.

>> that's correct. rather than pending, i might say provided that traffic measures are implemented and planning staff in consultation with two other city agency have determined that the traffic implementation are effective. >> commissioner tanner: that sounds pervertible to me. vice president moore, you said you were not in agreement? >> vice president moore: no, i am. >> commissioner tanner: it's presentable to me as well. >> commissioner diamond: i'm amendable to that. >> if there's nothing further,

there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as submitted by staff including supervisor yee's conditions. i did hear that the motion was restricting the start time to 6:00 a.m. the increase of the facility may increase number of chairs by 12 after one year and verification provided that staff is verified with other agencies that the transportation plan is effective and informational update presented to this commission. on that motion. [roll call vote]

so moved, othat motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that will place under your discretionary review calendar for your final item. item number 14, geary boulevard, a discretionary review. mr. winslow, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. however, i believe commissioner diamond wanted to -- [indiscernible] >> commissioner diamond: commiss ioners with your approval, i like to recuse flie myself froms item. i live in a house that i only

that's less than 500 feet from that project. >> i will entertain a motion to recuse commissioner diamond. >> vice president moore: move to recuse commissioner diamond from this item. >> second. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner diamond. [roll call vote]. so moved commissioners. commissioner diamond you're recused. mr. winslow, the floor is yours. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> good afternoon president koppel, vice president moore and i'm staff architect. before you is a public request of discretionary review as a

revision to permit 2019 to document two existing parking spaces in the rear of the property for use of residents only at the address of 3342 geary boulevard. no construction work is proposed. board of appeals hearing brought to light a storage shed and missing information regarding a site map where information was incorrectly noted or missing. the planning department requested the permit be suspended to allow time for the project's sponsor to correct the plans. the permit application was submitted. the permit d.r. requester

representing five star investment other than of the adjacent property. they are concerned that no correction to the site maps have been made, no plans adequately depict the existing conditions the application does not show access to the rear yard. there's no access to the rear yard and the parking. there have been no letters of support or opposition to this proposal. planning department review of this project is permitted intended to correct existing noncompliance structure. maximum number allowed on the parking space is three. person allowed in the rear yard

in the commercial district. site determined that the existing garage at the front of the property can accommodate only one parking space. project sponsor asserts that the access has been allowed but use of an easement along the adjacent process site where illegal access easement exist is a civil matter beyond the means of the planning department to determine or enforce.

>> mr. connolly, you have three minutes for your d.r. presentation. >> thank you very much. can you hear me? >> we can. >> good afternoon distinguished commissioners. i'm patrick connolly here on behalf of the d.r. requester. as heard the d.r. requester owns the adjacent property to the east of the subject property. for the last calendar, this is a strange one. the d.r. request challenges the application for rear yard parking. there's no vehicular access to the rear yard. there was a fence constructed on the property line before the permit was applied for and we

understand that the permit was applied for in response to the construction of the fence. there's no vehicular access to the rear yard on the subject property which is presumably the purpose of the permit application for rear yard parking. what is the point of the permit application? frankly to gain a litigation advantage because there are disputes between the parties. it's not for the purpose they're asking. it's not to actually have parking in the backyard because they're unable to gain vehicular access to the rear yard given the fence. the property owner seeking to use the planning department to gain litigation advantage, not for the use the application seeks. this was previously before the

board of appeals on a jurisdiction request and many members of the board of appeals were perplexed how the planning department could issue a permit for rear yard parking when there was no actual vehicular access. we remain similarly perplexed on that point. the other issue is that the map was supposed to be updated per zoning administrator sanchez's letter. in the materials that were provided to us, we don't see that that map was updated. we don't see anything in the application showing the existing fence. thank you for your consideration

to this matter. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> that was not your time yet. you have another 20 seconds. >> that's okay. >> very good. thank you. we should hear from the project sponsor. you have three minutes. >> hello, can you hear me? >> your slides are up. >> thank you, good afternoon commissioners and planning department staff. i'm here representing -- he's seeking permit to establish his right to the property so his long-standing use of certain portions of this property that east used for vehicle parking is formally recognized. i do understand that mr. winslow has expressed the legal basis

for his claim for parking at the rear under section 151 of the planning code. in that sense, his permit request falls within the maximum that's allowed on the property. there has been a shared driveway on the property. that is preexisted by the separation of these two parcels from the original owner. mr. jalali property always had access to this shared driveway and he's currently seeking prescriptive easement. my opponent here, has stated that a fence has been built on the property primarily to try to

exclude mr. jalali in exerting his rights over this property for which he has used for the last 20 years and probably used by mr. jalali's property for close to 100 years. mr. winslow is correct saying there's an ingress and egress that exits only to that shared driveway. that is an emergency exit to the property. although the use of the driveway preexisted subdivision of the property an easement was never recorded. use of the driveway is now subject to litigation. for this reason, five stars would have you believe that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances is present here. there's really no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involve in this matter or mr. jalali's permit review. the use for which the application has been submitted

is permitted by planning code and requires no permit to be issued. it seeks only to formalize and long standing use of those portions of the property. for that mr. jalali request that the application be approved. >> you have 15 more seconds. thank you, in concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should now open up for public comment. members of the public, this is your our opportunity to address this matter before the commission by pressing it star and 3 to be entered in the queue. i see no members of the public. take that back, there are a few. members of the public, you have one minute. >> this is jonathan randolph. i was curious about the packet

which noted that the shed needs to be removed because it is too high because it said it's over n francisco building code, mission no permit is required by 10-foot by 10-foot shed if it's one story tall which shed appears to be 10 feet tall. thank you. >> my name is grace johnson. i support the issuing of the permit. there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involving this permit. it should be honored.

thank you. >> members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. press star 3 to be recognized. commissioners, i see no additional members. we should hear from the d.r. requester for a two minute rebuttal. >> commissioners, you haven't heard anything to dispute the fact that there was no actual vehicular access to the rear yard possible at the time the permit was applied for. there was all existing fence on the property line, which is

exhibit 2 to the d.r. application where you can clearly see the fence. this permit, if granted, would not allow cars to park in the rear yard because there's no vehicular access. the construction of the fence or the long-standing as they refer to it use, is part of litigation and we maintain that there is no easement. there was hostile use for requisite period of time. that use was ended by the construction of the fence before the time ran. from a civil legal perspective, to the extent that it matters to you, we deny there's an easement

for this use. there is no way to park in the backyard. this permit has no use other than for litigation advantage purposes and the planning department should not be used for such purposes. >> that concludes your rebuttal. you have two minutes. >> thank you. this permit application is not for the purpose of litigation advantage. it is trying to confirm the rights that mr. jalali has enjoyed for many years. i can't recall my opponent's name, he referred to the fact that there's no vehicular access. that maybe true now but there's

a vehicle in the backyard currently on mr. jalali's property and has been since it was enclosed in that property by this fence. this fence is solely for the purpose of litigation to claim that mr. jalali has no access to his backyard. which he enjoyed up to this point. his vehicle is now enclosed and cannot be removed. the fact that the vehicle was there, would suggest there's always been access to his backyard. this yal alley has existed frome time these buildings constructed probably almost 100 years ago. thank you. >> great, thank you. that concludes your rebuttal. public hearing portion of this matter is closed. it is now before you.

commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i have a question. if there were a report of easement, would we be able to verify that or would that not be relevant? >> allowed use, the parking in the rear yard is an allowed use. the question is whether or not one can get to it. that's beyond our means. in other words, no access question is a matter to be determined at a future date in another location, another jurisdiction but it's not a function or a matter to be decided by land use control. >> commissioner tanner: i understand it's not decided --

i'm trying to understand because i concur with staff recommendation on this. just to understand in the situations where you have a land lot property, if they had a legal right to park and that was complied with the code, that lob allowed i'm assuming. that question has not been answered. >> it's my understanding. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i would move staff recommendation. >> second. >> seeing no other commissioners upon us, there's a motion that's been seconded to not take discretionary review and

approve. on that motion. [roll call vote]. so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that concludes your hearings for 2020. >> happy holidays. >> indeed. >> bye.

>> there's a new holiday shopping tradition, and shop and dine in the 49 is inviting everyone to join and buy black friday. now more than ever, ever dollar that you spend locally supports small businesses and helps entrepreneurs and the community

to thrive. this holiday season and year-round, make your dollar matter and buy black. on behalf of the recreation and park department and with gratitude for the partnership of 261, local 38, building trades, labor council, park parks alliai will welcome you to the william hammond hall awards. this is the 12th annual awards, this year's ceremony is a first. thank you to everyone who joined us virtually to honor our 12 new award des with exceptional dedication to their craft. with covid-19 pandemic in our midst for most of this year, our parks and open spaces have never been more important. we are