>> welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, march 25, 2021. on february 25, 2020, mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19 and april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely due to the end of the shelter-in-place. our 47th remote hearing. remote hearings require everyone's attention and your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda. comments or to speak 1-415-655-0001, and entering access code 1876467617.

when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please press star then 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted, your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when the allotted time is reached i will announce your time is up and take the next person. best practices are to equal from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. take roll at this time. [roll call] >> thank you. first on your agenda,

commissioners, consideration of items proposed for continuance, 2020-002333d rp, further commissioners under consent calendar, item 3, 2455 harrison street, proposed for continuance to june 3rd, i believe it was, a discretionary review was filed on this, yes, june 3rd so we need to push that matter out. also commissioners under the regular calendar, 2019-020740, 468 turk street, conditional use authorization, we have received a request from the supervisors office to continue to april 15,

2021. i have no other items proposed continuance at this time so we should take public comment. members of the public, your opportunity to speak to any of the items proposed for continuance by pressing star, then 3 to be added to the queue. you will have two minutes. >> linda chapman. i did not ask for an opportunity to comment last week on the decision to postpone grub state because i expected to speak in public comment but i was not allowed to do that when i pressed star 3. i want to make sure i am allowed to speak in public comment star 3. it has been a problem sometimes with the board of supervisors but they have a number you can call when there's a problem. >> yes, you will be able to

speak. ok. so if you are not speaking to any of the items, i'm going to mute your call. >> hi, kelly torres, calling about the project at 666 hamilton street, 2020-007333cua, and say that the house at 666 hamilton street -- >> apologize, i have to mute you because we are not on hamilton street right now. we are only taking items proposed for continuance. commissioners, i apologize, since the speaker is actually not submitting their comment, i should also include under

consent item 2, 2020-00630cua, 2201 powell street, also proposed for continuance to april 1, 2021. so again, members of the public, your opportunity to speak to any of these matters of continuance, by pressing star then 3. >> sorry about that you have to mute me, i was chiming in for 666 hamilton. apologize. hello. can you hear me? >> we can. >> ok. great. i am calling in regards to 255 harrison street, i understand that's been continued to june 3rd, but i can speak on this? >> harrison street, it is

proposed for continuance. only speak to the matter of continuance, not the project itself at this time. >> ok. and so i will have an opportunity to appear at that hearing or before, or submit written request before? >> yes. you can submit written comments any time to the staff planner and will have an opportunity to speak to the commission under public comment when that matter comes up on the agenda, whenever it is scheduled. >> and one more question, a point of information. is that a continuance just in the matter of the -- the effect of shadows on the parks department building or is that a general matter? >> sir, it's just for the item on today's agenda, the shadow

findings. there was a d.o. filed against the project so those matters will be heard together. >> ok, great. >> hi there, thank you so much for taking the call, i'm calling regarding item number 9, 468 turk street. i am very much in favor of the continuance as a resident nearby i don't feel that there has been sufficient notice provided to the residents nearby in a manner such that they can understand so this would give us some extra time to circulate information or for the architecture firm or anybody else involved to circulate information that could be understood by those living here. >> thank you. >> members of the public, last call for public comment on matters proposed to be continued. you need to raise your hand by

pressing star, then 3. mr. gladstone, i know you were interested in speaking to this matter. you need to press star then 3 to be entered into the queue. mr. gladstone if you are with us, last call on matters proposed for continuance. star then 3 to be entered into the queue. ok, commissioners. public comment is closed. and the matters are now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: continue items 1, 2, 3 and 9 as proposed. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call vote taken]

so moved, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. and since both items on your consent calendar have been continued to a later date, it will put us under commission matters, consideration of adoption draft minutes for march 11, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star then 3 to be entered into the queue. seeing no members requesting to speak, public comment is closed and the minutes are now before you. >> commissioner fung. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion then to adopt the

minutes. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 5, commission comments and questions. commissioner tanner. >> the department had a couple meetings and events over the last two weeks related to the general plan update and element, transportation, i believe safety and environmental justice, and so i was happy to be able to participate in two events, thank you staff for putting on what were really fun events for those who participated. hopefully fun for the members of the public as it was for the panelists. and curious, director, if you

have any updates on how the other events went or what might be next for the general plan updates. a couple surveys and other activities you were able to launch, curious how those went off. >> yeah, one, thank you for that comments, and thank you to staff for putting those together. it was a big undertaking but we did have good attendance and good feedback. not replacing but the outreach we are doing for the various elements but good to have them all together and to explain what the general plan does and how it affects our policy decisions and the city's policy decisions. so, good feedback, we are going to come up to you in april about the housing element itself and the goals, policies and actions that are kind of the draft of those and get your comment and additional public feedback. so again, part of a much larger

process, public process, but well attended and good feedback. thank you for your participation. >> thanks. >> ok. seeing no other requests from commissioners to speak, we can move on to department matters for item six, directors announcements. >> just on that topic as well, one of the forms were recorded or available through our website to view for those that may have missed and want to check them out. just want today, i invited cory teague here, wanted him to give a quick update on those. one was a letter of determination that talked about covid-related entitlement extensions and the other was, were a series of interpretations, most notably in

kitchen definitions. so, cory. >> sure. thank you. good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. just wanted to briefly acknowledge those two documents i issued in the last couple weeks. the commissioners were copied on both of those, you should have received them. they both are interested to commission as director hillis mentioned the first from last week was related to language and planning commission motions and also in various decision letters issued by the v.a. that allows the v.a. to grant extensions to performance periods for approvals if there's been appeal, litigation or delay by government agency, and so that left it to basically determine the shelter in place order that took effect in march 17 of last year in combination with all the other local and state orders constituted a government delay

to the ability to, for many projects to be able to adequately move forward and essentially stated that the period of time to overlap between that past year and the performance period would be extended for that same amount of time. the second document you were copied on was issued this past monday. if you remember back in october, you considered and made recommendations on an ordinance to amend the planning code to address state a.d.u. law, and at that time i came before you and let you know that i was working on a fairly large set of interpretation, kind of a hodge podge that includes a lot of different types of updates to interpretations but most notable being what director hillis mentioned, repealing, and clear definition of a kitchen which is not currently defined in the

planning code or building code but is kind of necessary as we implement the code in terms of what is a dwelling unit and what's not a dwelling unit. so, that had a lot of interpretations, and some very minor and technical, but i wanted to acknowledge both of those documents and just let you know if you have any questions, of course, we can go into get in touch by phone or however to discuss any questions that you might have. >> thank you, i think that's all we have if there's no questions. >> thank you, director hillis. commissioners, that will place us on item 7 for review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> good afternoon, aaron star,

manager of legislative affairs. held a hearing on and considered a resolution interim controls that required conditional use authorization for the use of a residential care facility to any other use. in effect since october of 2019 and set to expire in april. it would extend controls for additional six months, maximum time allowed for interim controls. findings of the report submitted to the clerk, basically summed up it's too soon to tell. removal of the residential care facility and approved the c.u. earlier this month. and one c.u. pending continued a few times by the commission. other than that, the city has added beds to the residential care facilities and two new residential care facilities. supervisor melguard questioned

the commission's decision to a single-family residence. and supervisor peskin -- i think the message i got from the hearing, they would have preferred the planning commission to have pushed back on the conversion more and questioned whether or not another operator could have taken over the space. i will note that this residential care facility in question went out of business prior to the interim controls going into effect. at the end of the hearing, supervisors made a motion to file the hearing and amend the resolution with some clarifying changes because these changes were deemed substantive, the resolution had to be continued to next week's hearing but will likely pass. next the committee considered the mayor's ordinance that would prohibit retail work spaces in the chinatown mixed use district. you heard this on february 18th and unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance. during the hearing, supervisor

peskin requested to be added as a co-sponsor. other than that, no comments from the committee members or members of the public. the committee then voted to forward the item to the full board with the positive recommendation. at the full board this week, the ordinances to enable 542 howard street, parcel f, passed second read and sponsored to have corrections to the central soma area passed the first read. ab wireless telecommunications at 590 second avenue. includes antennas and related equipment screened and two new rooftop enclosures. l this was continued by you several times but approved by this commission in january of this year. appellant's concerns were aesthetic, structures on the

subject building and slightly shade the adjacent building second floor deck. appellant was also concerned about health-related issues as well. many commenters in favor of the appeal, and the aesthetic concerns, and concerned over the loss of property values. claim for any homeowner right now. there were no speakers in favor of the project and against the appeal. at the beginning of the hearing, supervisor chan indicated she would like the hearing to go forward, however likely would continue the decision on the appeal to a later date. if after hearing the public comment she made a motion to accept the appeal and deny the project. supervisors spoke directly after her in order to add findings to the motion, one, that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional coverage and the gaps in coverage were not independently verified and did not meet section 303, such uses

will not injure property or potential developments in the city. vote to deny the project and take the appeal was unanimous, that includes my report for today. >> thank you, mr. star. if there are no questions from commissioners for mr. star, there is a report from the board of appeals on behalf of the deputy zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet last night and considered two items that may be of interest to the planning commission. 4840 mission street, appeal of building permit to demolish the valente funeral home, for dwelling units under sb45. new construction permit was issued last summer and not timely appealed to the board of appeals. appeal of the demolition permit was the first related to the sb35 project and the argument focussed on concerns related to potential impacts on their homes from construction. the board found the permit was

properly issued and voted to deny the appeal. 530 howard street, appeal of a permit to remove and replace a general advertising sign for planning code section 604-h, cannot reremoved and be placed. appellate argued the language was not clear and past board of appeals decisions allowed for the removal and replacement of such signs. the board found the language of section 604-h is clear and unambiguous and voted unanimously to deny the appeal. that concludes the report from the board of appeals. if there are no immediate questions from commissioners we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public in the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, with respect to agenda items, it will be

afforded when the item is reached during the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes. when the number of speakers exceed 15 minutes, it may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit general public comment for items that are not on today's agenda by pressing star, then 3 when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, georgia shutus, i sent you an email in response to last week's hearing on 403 28th street, i listed five categories of demolitions, so please feel free to read it if you can. take care. it's in a pdf attachment to the email i just sent. thank you, have a good day, take care, good-bye.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, district 8 tenant. i have a question/comment regarding the 2019 housing inventory report. why does the housing inventory report categorize adus as affordable housing in their annual reporting of housing production? new adus are market raise housing, not affordable housing. it's erroneous and false and misleading to label market rate housing as affordable housing in this report. refer to the 2019 housing inventory report page 35. also there was a request made by members of the board of supervisors for the job housing

fit report which was overdue at the hearing held with planning department representatives, and i recently saw this noted in an article published in the san francisco examiner. i'm wondering what progress the department has made on publishing the jobs housing fit report. thank you. >> linda chapman, well, where to begin, i have so many concerns. you know, i cannot tell you first of all what a wonderful nob hill had for so many years, and i would hope it would be possible to have a similar relationship now, you know, collaboration, cooperation and being able to get information. for about a year and a half i

have been trying to kind of pin down what's going on here with the 65 foot height limit suddenly being breached as you have before you again a project at california and larkin, pardon me, california and polk and the 65 foot height limit. i came to you when that was up more than a year ago and told you there's a 65 foot height limit, it can't be 80 feet, oh, no, you approved 80 feet anyway, and you know, i had been asking for months to get copies of the zoning maps. how hard should that be, you know. well, before the lockdown shut me out of the computers at u.s.f., sending me things not the zoning maps i was asking for, and when after months and months of trying to get them when i could no longer walk into the department, i was about to do that when the shut down came, i received maps that showed oh my god, all the height limits had been changed all over the place, not only there but other

place, and yet there had not been any planning commission or board of supervisors hearings that anybody in the neighborhood knew of us. three of us from past organizations, nob hill neighbors -- my understanding two minutes are up already? from -- we were going to have a meeting, you know, in order to try to reestablish the community protection for the neighborhood that used to exist when all of a sudden the shutdown came and the place we had reserved didn't matter, we couldn't have the meeting. and trying to get in touch with the planners when i call, the one in charge of that particular project now doesn't take phone calls, not even messages. you know, i don't have access to the computers at u.s.f. anymore and the one i have don't -- >> thank you, miss chapman, that is your time.

>> good afternoon, commissioner, katherine howard. i'm concerned about the impact of state legislation sb330 on the approval process in san francisco. sb330 limit for hearings and continuances is five per project. however, sb330 does not clarify whether or not a continuance without the project ever being heard can be counted towards this limit. i'm asking you please ask the planning department and the city to clarify what constitutes continuance and how the public will be informed about the limit for the projects. for example, if a project is being continued by the sponsor or postponed due to errors on the part of the staff, this is used up the number of continuances. if so, this legislation could be abused to limit the number of

hearings that are needed to provide information to your commission as well as transparency to the public and the opportunity for the public to comment on a project. i hope that you will pursue an interpretation of this legislation. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audrey realm with neighborhood council. last week we brought up to your attention the impact of numerous continuances relating to sb330, and as miss howard stated before me, this is going to be an issue because we need to define what continuances are per this new legislation. we requested the department do an informational presentation

for you and the public to come up to date on the implications of this bill when it comes to continuances. so this week i'm following up on the same issue. does the city of san francisco have a stated policy regarding what makes a continuance and sb330 continuance, and has anyone contacted the city attorney's office to read the law and come up with a local implementation of sb330? it's worth noting that sb330 does not specify what type of continuances counted toward the quota of five specified by this legislation. neither does it state how an sb330 project will be differentiated from all other projects for the benefit of the public. we need planning and city attorney's office to step up to the plate and come up with a documented policy of how this will be implemented locally, and

appreciate it if you could actually ask them to do so. secondly, quickly, i just wanted to do a revisit of the matter of the illegal demolition that was before you last week in the case of 403 28th street. i would like to stress out what jerry and i pointed out, which is changing demo calculations will do nothing, i repeat nothing to deter illegal demolition. and changing the demcalculations will not stop developers -- >> thank you, that's your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i want to echo the comments of the previous two speakers. we would also love clarification

on sb330 impact and how it's going to be implemented locally. the more clear the rules are, the more certainty there is around home building and the more housing that we are going to get. so we think that also makes a ton of sense. in addition to that understanding, housing accountability act impact on projects and having those rules further clarified would also be tremendously helpful. other thing i wanted to touch on were these general planned meetings that are happening. i have attended a couple and want to commend planning staff for the work that they are doing. i think they have been interesting and informative conversations and hopefully putting us in a positive direction towards more equitable san francisco, and so thank you to everybody involved in that. thank you.

>> mr. gladstone, your line has been unmuted. >> thank you, can you hear me now? >> yes, we can. >> good afternoon, commissioners. attorney for the project sponsor for 468 turk street, 101 # building unit. you and your staff have recently received a letter stating the project sponsor has not engaged properly in community outreach and for that reason you have a request for continuance from the community. on your screen i believe you'll see the four meetings that have been held and we were a little surprised that you received the communication from the community outreach, a meeting on the 30th of october, 23rd of february,

meeting on march 4 with randy shaw, tndc, march 15 meeting with many of the residents of those two nonprofits. and we have a meeting coming up on march 29, our fifth meeting. we feel we should have a hearing right after that fifth meeting but we understand community members don't want us to have a hearing on the first of april. we are willing to have one on the 15th, but we wanted to point out that under sb330 we believe there have been three either workshops or hearings or continuances, five are appropriate, five are allowed. we certainly hope that the next

which will be the last and we are in communication with stakeholders, and what we hope will be the last meeting on monday. we encourage any stakeholders to communicate with us because we can't know who they are other than looking in your neighborhood association lists and we have certainly done that outreach. thank you very much. >> members of the public, last call for general public comment. you need to press star, then 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioner -- i take it back. always one, right? hi, hi name is giovanni, i live in the marina district, love the marina district, i wanted to

call and saying it's a great idea that we have a smoke lounge in a place where i can retreat my medicine without having to pay -- >> i'm sorry, we are not on that item right now. that is going to be taken up later today on today's agenda. i believe you are calling about the smoke lounge in the marina at fillmore street. that's item 12. you'll need to raise your hand by pressing star 3 when that matter is call. final last call for general public comment. star then 3. seeing no additional requests to speak, general public comment is closed. >> can i just interrupt and give a quick -- some of the issues brought up about sb330 and counting hearings, what hearings count. we are trying to get clarification on that, but as you know, the state law wasn't

terribly clear. we are working with the city and attorney and our hope is that to clarify that hearings that are continued at the request of a project sponsor without the city request, not be counted towards that five-hearing limit and we would ask project sponsors to note that, too, when they request a continuance. so we'll have more clarity on that. thanks. >> thank you, director hillis. commissioners, that will place us under your regular calendar for item 8. 2021-001410crv, 42 otis street. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> staff is prepared. >> ok. the floor is yours. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. item before the planning

commission for a change to the inclusionary affordable housing compliance method from on-site to the affordable housing fee. the commission suggest resolution inclusionary compliance, 101.1. approves demolition of the existing two-story industrial building and construction of a five-story, 55 foot tall mixed use building, 24 single room occupancy s.r.o. dwelling units and commercial uses. there are three private second floor deck, 849 square feet for open space for second floor residents and fifth floor roof deck, 730 square feet of usable open space for all residents. there is a typo in the draft

resolution that staff would like to read into the record. there is no existing housing on the site today. to date the department has received one letter in opposition to the proposal because of the loss of on-site inclusionary units. 415.5g, a project sponsor must pay the affordable housing fee unless it chooses to meet the requirements of the program through an alternative, be it on-site, off-site, small site, or combination. may 7, 2017, elected to satisfy inclusionary housing requirement with three on-site units. october 28, 2020, not 2021 as noted in the executive summary, the project team submitted revised inclusionary housing affidavit electing the affordable housing fee method instead. because it will satisfy the housing fee, no on-site units are required.

planning commission or the department may not require project sponsors to select a specific alternative. if a project sponsor selects to meet the requirements to one of the alternatives described in 415, they must choose 30 days prior to project approval from the commission or the department. the alternative will be a condition of project approval and recorded against the property in a notice of special restrictions. any subsequent change that results in the reduction in the number of on-site units will require public notice for a hearing and approval from the planning commission. the project is before the planning commission today because of the subsequent change that results in the reduction of the number of on-site units requiring a hearing and the planning commission's approval. in addition, because the first construction document or building permit application number 20170302802 was already issued on december 31, 2019, the

project is subject to interest on the affordable housing fee, and 415, limited to considering issues to 415 in request for modification. the project was previously reviewed by the commission, 2016005406drp and per d.r. action memo, the planning commission did not take d.r. in september 2019, found it complied with the planning code, general plan and conformed with the urban design guidelines. the project was approved without modifications and the inclusionary requirement was being satisfied on-site with three units. the project's design has not changed, however some updates have been perceived. since the publication, pardon, since the public hearing on september 18, 2018, the project sponsor has updated the project

as follows. the project sponsor previously converted approximately 650 square foot community room on the second floor to allow four new retail uses on the second floor. this change was previously administratively approved by the planning department. the project previously converted approximately 850 square foot common second floor deck to allow three new private decks. this change was previously administratively approved by the planning department. sponsor has reduced the amount of on-site in inclusionnary units from 3 to 0 and assessed at 20% of the gross residential floor area to demonstrate compliance with 415. affordable housing fee will be pursued with building permit application 202010287601. they found it's consistent with

the plan and relevant objective and policies of the general plan. although the project results in a loss of on-site inclusionary units, it will pay the affordable housing fee, will help fund affordable housing elsewhere. for example, the mayor's office housing community development has issued a multi-set request for qualifications to seek qualified developers to assist permanently affordable housing for seniors, families, hiv positive households and formerly -- and 772 pacific avenue, 67 mission, 1939 market street, 1515 south van ness, 88 fluxom, freelon, and on harrison street. affordable housing street paid by 42 otis street will assist in

funding those project. necessary, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes, and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. vetel, you have five minutes. >> thank you, steve vetel, on behalf of the project sponsor. the reason for this request is that the 42 otis project, now under construction, faces serious financial challenges and significantly addressed by a switch from providing three on-site d.m.r. condos to pay the affordable housing fee. based on several unexpected occurrences. construction was delayed by over two years. even though it's a small project, only 24s.r.o. units,

process took 13 months to complete and discretionary review request was filed four months after the review was completed, even though the commission rejected the d.r., it delayed it by many more months. construction began on april 2020, by which time construction costs had increased by 50% from when the sponsor initially underwrote the project and purchased the land in 2016. after much effort, the sponsor was able to obtain a construction loan based on condo pricing supportable in 2019. because of the pandemic, projected pricing for small s.r.o. condos has plummeted. given these circumstances, construction lender is requiring the change for the financial viability of the project before continuing to fund the loan. without such improvement to the finances, the lender may stop funding upcoming construction draws. if it were to occur, the sponsor

would be unable to finish the building. significant means to improve the financial viability is to change the sponsor election from on-site b.m.r., and the lender has demanded we try to do so. approximately $480,000, 3 on-site condos is more of a financial burden, at this point the project is unable to bear. permanent lenders the sponsor has approached are also willing to consider taking out the construction loan with a permanent loan if the building has a flexibility to be either a rental or a condo project, for the first several years of occupancy until condo prices for s.r.o. stabilizes. b.m.r.s would need to be sold, even if rentals, it's contrary to the current policies.

as the commission is aware, they have depended on the payments for the projects, mohcb generates a significantly higher level of affordability than would be achieved by three s.r.o. condos at 42 otis. in addition, pay interest between the date of the first construction document and the date of payment. for all these reasons we request the commission follow the staff recommendation and permit the project sponsor to change inclusionary housing election from on-site units. project sponsor is available with me to answer any questions you may have. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you, mr. vetel. that concludes the sponsor presentation, we should go to public comment. members of the public, your opportunity to speak to this matter, star then 3 to be added

to the queue. seeing no members of the public -- there's one, ok. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, again, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. this is not a project that we have reviewed and do not know the details, but we are well aware of how difficult it is to get projects to be financially feasible and so we certainly see this is a reasonable request. for those unaware, 42 otis is quite literally the building that touches our office, so the fact that it is in our back yard, if you will, we certainly want to see it completed and have people move in, and so respectfully request that you follow staff's recommendation and grant the switch. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, san francisco land use coalition. i am calling in opposition to allowing the developer -- we have to at some point face the music and build affordable housing. and as you know, these market rate housings that have to pitch in for the affordable housing portion of their obligation don't even meet the actual need that a multi-unit facility brings about when some multi-unit facility is erected. 10% or 20% is measly, it's not even enough. in this case, the developer wants to fee out. so my question to you is when and where are we actually going to build these units if we

cannot erect three affordable housing units on otis, do you think we could do this anywhere else in the city? what is the solution to this? i highly request this request be denied and requiring the project sponsor to fit three affordable units. if we cannot build affordable units on otis or gary, then where? this is not the first time this has happened. the past two years, at least two projects that have come to you requesting for getting out of their obligation by feeing out. one in tenderloin and the other on geary street, and you approved both of them. this time, i'm imploring you not to do so and require the developer to actually build these units on-site. thank you.

>> commissioners, affordable housing advocate for seniors. i'm here to request the commission deny the 42 otis street amendment to inclusionary housing compliance. interesting followed the inclusionary housing process for a very long time, i've become increasingly concerned about the way it works and how developments are applying it. among major concerns is the fee-out option. according to a 2019 study at san francisco state before the year 2000 all developments chose on-site b.m.r.s. from 2000 to 2009, 87% chose on-site. from 2010 to 2017, only 59% had on-site units.

this so me is a very large program drift. going back to the origins of inclusionary housing, it was named inclusionary for a very important reason. across the country and in san francisco these programs were intended to produce affordable housing, yes. but also, and no less crucial to promote racial and economic inclusion and integration. while it's true the fee-out found contributes in a large way to 100% affordable project units we need to think long and hard about the other results of pushing affordable using out of market rate buildings and into isolation. is this what was originally intended by inclusionary? i believe for this reason, plus exclusionnary pricing and other reasons, inclusionary program ordinance needs a reexamination

of how it works and who it works for. meantime, today, please do not allow the 42 otis street amendment. thank you. >> commissioners, anastatia once again. i'm saying this amendment should not be passed. i'm thinking that this only promotes racial and social segregation. it is not a wise policy to pursue. the fee-out is something that developers use, crying the blues, and it does not help us get affordable housing into our city for our most vulnerable

residents, thank you. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star, then 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is now closed. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a question for staff. has staff kept any tally of how many on-site affordable units we have moved in lieu fees, looking back four years, and if we do or don't, i would like to see question start doing it, see it by project size, project location, and project type,

ownership versus rental. this is a very difficult decision. i think public raised a number of issues we do need to consider. i do not think that this project should be -- i think this project is a lightning rod for allowing us to ask for questions and i want to leave it with that for myself and see what the commissioners have to say. thank you. >> yeah, this is definitely not ideal, we always like to preferably see the b.m.r.s on-site, but with the amount of uncertainty these days and what's happened over the last year or so, i think we might need to at least get some flexibility to get housing units built. did you have some comments? >> happy to chime in on commissioner moore's question. so my knowledge, this has not happened very often.

we do require a public hearing from whenever someone identifies on-site and switches it to the fee, which i think was a code change that happened in the last round of changes from the inclusionary, and i may ask miss jardines to chime in if i'm mistaken. from what i understand, this is not a very frequent thing we have seen probably in the last couple of years, to my knowledge. >> that is my understanding as well, rich. >> commissioner. >> commissioner moore: and make sense to look more closely. each time it happens we all pause and i'm not sure how many times i have paused, i would like more certainty and raised a number of deeper questions we might want to go through. sorry for interrupting. >> commissioner moore, to the broader question getting you data on projects that we have

approved and how many have selected to fee-out versus provide the units on side is something we can work with to compile and get to you. i don't think we have it currently, but i think it's a great request and data we should have. because you know, and i think we want to see units on-site, but there's also, you know, low c.d. has been here before to talk about the need to generate fee revenue as well, additional, they use it obviously to produce affordable housing projects that are 100% affordable, and generally to lower the m.i. than what we provide through the inclusionary on-site option. so, there is this policy choice in whether we are hitting the right balance or not, i think a good question and discussion we

should have. >> and interject the fact we have begun looking into that data and compiling that for you, commissioner moore and the rest of the commission. >> commissioner moore: thank you so much. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioner moore and director hillis, and on that asking, having the planning department to produce the data but i think there's also the anxiety of the new applications or new projects that may end up being off site fee instead and i don't know how we can determine, i think it's going to be based on the applications or based on whether they are feeing out, but i think general anxiety in terms of, you know, where there is financial liability and financial crisis, or how banks are operating at this point. so i think that's going to have a further discussion in terms of

financial liability but in terms of this particular project i understand that this is a condo, which -- i guess my question to the staff, when it was originally proposed for a b.m.r. condo f.r.o., what was the a.m.i. it's going to be at, is it going to be 80% one person to two person, a bigger picture here who will be issued for this b.m.r. inclusionary s.r.o. condo, because the units are quite small. like 200 square feet. and for my experience, home ownership tends to be, tends to have a bigger focus on family unit sizes that have bigger unit sizes. so, i, you know, i also support commissioner moore's comments in terms of like whether looking into off-site fees and who will

it benefit when it comes to on-site. [please stand by] . .

. . . >> it is my understanding to help with select developers and there have been there have been updates to the tracking of this rfq, so i don't know definitively but they are working to select developers which i believe is the first step in identifying which sites will take priority versus others. >> i think their timing is somewhat revenue dependent to the extent they get revenues in and can fund those projects. this is not going to tilt the process and office and affordable fees will have an impact on the timing.

>> i guess my suggestion for the project sponsor is i think if it's coming to the planning commission, i think it's very important that the project sponsor have conversation with them in terms of the affordable housing that is going to be paid for and that the planning commission should have that type of plan in front of souse that we are very confident that the affordable housing is going to be built soon. those are my comments. thank you. >> commissioner chan? >> commissioner: >> thank you. i want to echo my fellow commissioner's comments around having a tally especially the project size and location in that will feature and include more of the quantitative information for commission staff report so we have a holistic picture. i want to ask the project sponsor a question to explain some of the rationale around choosing the fee. and i thought i heard about how financing was difficult for sros

of this side and wondering if you can walk us through more of this thinking. >> sure. steve on behalf of the project sponsor. the issue is that the on site units have a restrictive purchase price which they can be sold at which affects financial liability of the project and to the greater extent even with interest. that is the reason they are pushing us to adopt that option as opposed to the outside units. i would note that the project was always proposed to be a condominium and for sale project. with 80% of ami and and a condo, it is 80% of ami, just to clarify that issue.

but that is the reason that the sponsor is seeking this change is to help financial liability of the project and construction that will continue. >> commissioner: so it wasn't the issue of the open space part. i wanted to understand. i thought i heard around the size of the open space being an issue around financing. >> i would -- the units are about 350 square feet each. not 20 # o. so they are regular sro size units. there is common open space that meets the requirements of planning code for the common open space. there is no deficit of open space in the project. >> thank you. those are my questions for now. commissioner moore?

>> commissioner moore: i wanted to add one additional question for director hill. you were talking to moacd. are you taking into consideration there is a dip in general funding streams given that large projects have kind of stopped and how that affects the building of the nine sites that you mentioned. this is a very the news situation and for us to really make the right decisions, everything occurs in a lag. i would like to have that question also answered. it afshgss jobs, housing, linkage fees and affects their ability to fund these projects and produce the affordable housing. so this can constantly gauge

what fees are moving along. >> a commissioner diamond? >> first is a question for staff and the city attorney's office. is it -- does the developer have the right to choose to fee out? >> that is a great question. thank you so much. yes, the project sponsor has the option to elect which alternative to comply with 415, so this is at their discretion. >> so given that, i feel like i would need to support staff's recommendation here.

however, i believe that other commissioners have raised excellent pointes about need for additional data and that if the preference is to have people not fee out, we need to take a look at the current ordinances and director hiller have conversations with the developer rs about why they are choosing to fee out so we can in drafting or thinking about revisions to ordinances and create systems that are are in sync with how financing of the project works. i agree i think our goal was to get more bmrs built on site if we can and i would like to

accomplish that in a way that is in insync to accomplish our goals. >> a commissioner fung? >> president fung: without getting into the financial issues that the developer has brought forth, although not in great detail for us and without getting into the nuances of the inclusionary policy, i would maximize the limited resources we have in the creation of affordable housing in the fact that paying the in lieu fee is

greater percentage as bringing it on site. i would have supportive of trying to maximize this limit of resource to affordable housing elsewhere. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i appreciate a lot of the comments that have been made and generally i think that on site affordable units are so important to get them built for many reasons that were built and the callers mentioned in terms of promoting integration and it would have been great to see smaller condos for sale to be a lower price that are affordable and by design will have more affordability and what that looks like for the market rate projects and how they are

priced. and a lot of for sale housing is a family size. and just seeing the market response to this type of product available for sale. i look forward to learning more information as was requested about how we have -- what has happened in the last two years with the request some forward and the balance between on site and the fee being paid. just a question to make sure that i understand. right now the program is structured that you need to pay a fee or as an alternative, there are the four options in

the staff report, correct? >> they don't have to pay the fee. that was the fee section. if they don't pay the fee, and kind of belt on commissioner diamond's question and comment that at least the way the code is written, you must pay the fee and it is kind of like we have this plethora of options that allow people to satisfy the code section. i agree with commissioner fung that we get more money and maximize the dollars to go towards moa when we have projects that are shovel ready and sounds like a downturn and projects going down as well.

while i prefer to have this request to have the three units or to have the project switch the message being provided. commissioner moore? with the preference for on site and the fine equation to have a balance as the on site so i intuitively prefer this because it achieves the goals and achieved so eloquently outlined. i also like to say that as we

move forward, there has to be a discussion of social and racial equity to look at 100% affordable sites. that is a difficult issue to pursue and the homeowner's fees, etc. i think we need to start and continue to really carefully look at avoiding fee outs and look very carefully at how we issue approvals because in people unfortunately use the on site affordable as a way to sell the project as being uneachievable project. i am not trying to make that a negative comment, but i am often

swayed to support a project more easily as a project does provide on site affordable and that is a very personal comment, not an easy one to make. i would like people to be aware of that. thank you. >> is there a motion? >> hi, if i may, president koppel. i want to commissioner moore said. and at the same time, i will make a motion to approve this request to change the method of satisfying the inclusionary housing requirement for this project. >> an i will second that motion. >> thank you, commissioners. there is a motion seconded to approve this question.

[roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that passes unanimously 7-0. and item 9, 468 turk street is continued to april 15 placing us on item 10, case 2019-001088cua and conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make the presentation? >> i am, jonas. >> great. the case before you is the request with the unauthorized dwelling unit and the construction of the three-story basement approximately 4,920

square foot. and two off-street parking spaces. the project is on the south side of 26th street between castro and diamond with the r1 one district and valley neighborhood. and the need neighborhood includes two to three story residential development with the family dwelling unit with the unauthorized dwelling unit and the construction of the three-story basement to planning code 207c6.

six members of the public attended the preapplication meeting and to go to today's hearing they have engaged with neighborhood and modifications have been made as a result. and they have received the correspondence provided after the publication of the project and to express the project as reasons for the opposition and two provided after publication. with the compatibility to the immediate neighborhood. and with conditional approvals and necessary for the following

reasons. and that the balance and will maximize the use of the underdeveloped lot and provision an additional with the constructive residential building and come patable with the size, density, height, and the immediate neighborhood. i am available for any free questions. >> i am. with the project sponsor and with the earlier comments and

with then in conforming edu and to require rehabilitation at a high expense. and large supports of the supporting wood frame is comprised, the plumbing is old. the electrical wiring is old and requires upgrades and seismic retrofete is likely needed. the expense would be prohibitive. due to the structure having an unlawful unit currently, the cost of rebill baiting that unit would render that no longer subject to rent control and the project sponsor have worked with the adjacent neighbors and planning to revise the project

more than seven times. the owner has lived with this the last 11 years. her and her spouse plan on making this the primary residence. they have two grade school age children who attend local schools. and she plans on including in the living situation the elderly parents. one of the objections was the size. i would note that the san francisco planning department 2017 housing with families with children specifically identifies that san francisco requires more multi-bedroom properties in the three and four bedroom size. this is a four bedroom project. the greater space is needed and specifically identified as being needed in order to attract and retain families with children such as the project owner. and it is specifically

identified that unit size, that is the size of the house itself s an issue for attracting families, an issue that san francisco has belt with as far as not being able to attract families into living in the city due to smaller size units and smaller size buildings. in addition to the general size of the project, if that support specifically notes that extra storage space is required for families with children. they need space for children's toy, games and all of the extras that come with households. this house is intended to be multi-generational and intended to house her, her parents and their children. that is 6 people in a living area of 3060 which is 612 square

feet per person and one bedroom per couple and per child. there is -- there has been brought up in the past on continuance hearing issues regarding the tenant. it should be noted that no tenant has ever been evicted from the property. the original tenant left under a move out agreement for a cheaper residence in the same area. there is not tenant that will be evicted because the property is vacant. it will not be used at any time because it is very high risk proposition and the dwelling unit and to collect rent and to evict and producing rent. and the house itself is vacant and used by the family. and as part of the development.

and this will add to the housing stock within san francisco. there is actually one legal unit on the property. that legal unit will become two legal units through the project. and one additional unit and free up mrs. zhou's parent's unit. so two units will be freed up or added to the housing stock. and this will not have an effect on rent housing stock and the edu is not going to be rent and is not in a housing stock. if it was going to be remodelled or rehabilitated given the excessive cost, it would be exempt from rent control. and so in any situation there will be no lost to rental housing stock. a number of changes were made by the owner and the project sponsor to --

>> thank you. that is your time. the commissioners may have additional follow-up questions later. but at this point we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. once you hear your line is unmuted, that is the indication to begin speaking. you will have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is maggie and i am a resident in san francisco. this is a big family living in

san francisco for 11 years who has two kids and seniors living together. the old house as the lawyer previously described is structurally unstable and is not safe to live in. and to set back on top of the hill. it is very unacceptable for the seniors who is currently in the household. the new project provides an opportunity to build a new home for this multi-generational household. with extra rental unit on site which is also beneficial to the housing crisis in san francisco. the house also provides nice features and backyard which is good for the environment. for all these benefits and the benefit for the family and the neighborhood, i sincerely hope that the project can be approved.

thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. there are many issues that have been raised about this project throughout the years and i am sad to see the department is not responsive. and for one, yes, there are no tenant issues because the tenant is displaced for $6,000. that is how much they were bought out for in 2016. secondly t duplex or as the staff refers to it as udu is on the assessor's record as a record with two separate utility in fee and my question to you is is it okay in light of the fact

that our reallocation has been increased so that everybody is wringing their hands and so unfair and every lawmaker call this is unfair. is it okay to demolish a two unit place? with the assessor's record and replace wit one unit and an adu? to me this is not apples to apples, oranges to oranges. we can't compare the two. and it doesn't do anything for us in our housing stock. so respect to the scale, i could refer you to another project that was built right here in this neighborhood. and they have the owners have two kids, two young children. and they wanted to have their in laws and parents come and visit. they did the same thing. and the total project wasn't

more than 3500 square feet including the units for the inlaw. this one is still pretty big. again, we're not against the dem situation of the house that is not going to be workable for a young family. i am not saying that they should not increase from 1,000 square feet to something that should be comfortable for their young family and the children -- >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. you need to suppress star 3 to be added to the queue. >> hello. i live in the area and i am kind of skeptical when you have a two

unit on the person from changing it and it doesn't make sense to me. so ewould be curious to see what this goes for on the market. thank you. >> hello members of the committee. i am speaking in support of the project and the parents of young children and meetings and calls all the time. so i understand that to have the

extra space at this critical moment is pretty important. we don't know how the situation will be evolve over time. hopefully the vaccine will be good, but we never know. so at this moment and also have extra space and is sometimes a problem to use my garage to have meetings and so with the extra space. and i hope that the commissioners and staff consider that.

>> we have known the family for many years and i know they are a lovely family and they have been living in san francisco for a long time over 10 years. and our kids went to kindergarten with them together. and so both of their kids were living and born and raised in san francisco and which is very important. and i know there is a san francisco housing crisis, but as the commissioners, we probably want to support family growth in san francisco first. so the zhou family have two young kids and grandparents and two couples who live -- and

another couple in the same household. it is a big family. and so they need bigger space. due to covid, there is a big challenge for them and many people moving out of san francisco and no place for larger families to stay and grow. they plan to keep growing the family and to ask for a bigger house. and the existing house is in bad condition and small bedroom, tiny yard and the house and not built to code which is not safe. so that is why they are trying to work on this proposal and to address the neighbor's concern

and they have been working on this for over two years. i would love to ask you to consider the proposal. they love san francisco and love to stay and keep growing their family here. that is all. >> thank you, members of the public. lost call for public comment. public comment is closed and the mater is now before you. >> i will be supporting the staff recommendation on this one. >> u a commissioner moore? >> i am in support of the project. i have one question for staff. it is our responsibility to see that udu really work. i think the layout of the edu is really quite reasonable. the only thing that i do not know and i am addressing the

question to does the bedroom have the full exposure requirements? it looks like a nested bedroom because i do not see any windows. >> yes. thank you, commissioner moore. so the bedroom does meet the exposure requirements. it would be out to -- i can pull up the plans. >> page a102. the exposure requirements will be met from the living space at

the front. the bedroom has exposure to the back. they are satisfying that requirement with the front facing out to the street. >> that is not the way bedroom exposure is defined from what i understand. but as i ask you the question, when you move the drawing over a little bit more to the right and look at the rear yard, does it mean given that the bedroom has a door leading to the rear yard a rear yard deck will be shared between the edu occupant and the rest of the family. the family comes out of the bedroom down there? do you suggest -- and i don't see any separation which is one deck which is set from the lower level.

and issued and between the unit and this bedroom here which is where the main unit is. and so it doesn't and is a nested bedroom and the open space which is basically not to delineated for the specific use of the edu. that is a big question i have.

under residential demolition findings that it is in safe santory conditions and i am hearing contradictory statements on this. so can you clarify that? so in relation to the existing structure and is livable and situation in terms of the single family home. so with the area and with the innovation of that portion of the structure. it is kind of the two references and to do that based on the data and family units. it does contain a udu which is illegal and doesn't mean the

life safety standards. there was a comment earlier that it is seen as two units even though to clarify that and in front of us is the 1,000 square feet which is the first floor and 570 square feet and whether that constitutes two units. my understanding is what we are having it right now is it's one single family home that is a udu. those are not two units. in term of the legal kind of land use of this site, it is a single family dwelling unit. the planning code does define the with the report done by the

department of family home with the planning code with the udu. in terms of the question on the access to open spacing. so there is the square feet of common usable space. is that something that is accessible? that is comment for the single family unit and there is a private open space for the single family. it does not contain private usable space and is satisfied through common open usic space. there is that main unit and the

stairs that lead up to the common rear yard because of the slope of the side it is. for me in general this seems in compliance in terms of the unit slices and the adu and is the single main reference and 3060 square feet. so with this discussion and the smaller size and will be 20% below market rate so that when i look to the udu and i know there

are proposals in legislation. in general, i am in support of this right now. but i hope to see edu in a way that is more equitable in that way. those are my comments. >> commissioner fung. >> i would move to grant the conditional use. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner tan sner >> aye. >> commissioner chan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> a commissioner moore?

>> and commission president koppel. so moved. that motions passes unanimously 7-0 and go to item 11-2020-007383cua at hamilton street. this is a conditional use thor zags. staff, are you prepared to make the presentation? >> yes, i am. the floor is yours. >> afternoon, commissioners. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code 303 and 317 to allow the with the result of nix new units at f 66 hamilton street and the family home is abandoned and not occupied since

the 1980s and no history of evictions in the last 10 years and reclassified for the purpose of historic preservation and determined to be exempt from ceqa as a class one exemption. the project sponsor held two remote preapplication meetings in the sum we are the preserving the large redwood tree and has agreed to include a large set back on proposed lot b to ensure that the tree is preserve and that is shown on the plans before you and included in the staff report. and there are five emails in opposition to the request as proposed. and concerns include the lack offed a rat parking and open green space on the property and historic prez racings issues as well as the request and is on

balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and will replace an abandoned single family home 245 that is fallen in a state of disrepair with six quality units. and the proposed building is conformed to the residential guidelines and appropriate in terms of material, scale, proportion and massing. as such t department recommends approval of the project with conditions. thank you and i am available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. kirby r you prepared to make the presentation? >> i am. can you hear me? >> we can hear you. and you have five minutes. >> thank you very much. go to the first slide please. to walk you through touch base

on the projects with the opportunity -- [audio breaking up] >> i am unable to hear mr. curry. >> right. mr. kirby -- you seem to be cutting in and out a little bit. you might -- i am going to let you start from the beginning if you want to try one more time. go ahead. mr. kirby r you with us? >> can you hear me now? >> yes, we can hear you now. go ahead. >> fantastic. thank you. i am getting an echo, and i don't know if that is my phone or my computer. >> your computer is what i unmuted. so you may want to mute your phone. >> got it.

let me make one adjustment please. can you hear me now? >> yes. >> great. thank you very much. i appreciate your patience. again, commissioner, thank you very much for the opportunity to present the project to you. we imagine this project as one that could celebrate this area and to wit, you will note there is a degree of disparity and quad a is a three bedroom, two bathhouse. >> i can only hear every second word. >> mr. kirby, let me try to unmute your phone.

let me find your phone number here. mr. kirby, is that you? >> it is me. mason kirby. >> i think that is going to be much better. go ahead. >> okay. thank you, again, commissioners. i will try one more time. i appreciate your patience. the idea behind this project was to celebrate the inclusion of adu elements, to wit, we have three lots where there are interesting and inventive configurations for the included adu's. you will note that many of them enjoy direct access to ground floor rear yards or in this particular case a front yard patio and that has the preserved redwood country availability. law a with a 1950 square foot main unit and 672 square foot unit with a 10 foot ceiling and

lot b we have an 1800 square foot main unit and 1,000 square foot edu and in lot c the main unit is a little over 2100 square feet. and the adu is 830 square feet. if i could say that the nature of the architectural design is one that we really developed to manage the nature of the relationship that the existing neighbors put through the plans. and there are a variety of alignments and offsets that look to land and a building of this size and in this particular location in a thoughtful fashion. slide two, if i could please david. the site features an existing redwood country that has been pruned over the years and fairly misshapen but is something that our arborist has mentioned they

would be able to adjust and modify. we have included a preservation zone around it. on the lowest slide is an existing neighborhood with a light well on the left. and an existing neighbor on the right. there is a bump out edge in the middle of the panoramic photo the subject property in white is dilapidated existing home. and both adjacent neighbors have features that we were looking to preserve as a function of our unit site inclusion. a neighborhood to the right with the existing window line and neighbor to the right and the light well. and the slope goes from left to right and front to rear. an there is an opportunity to have with the next slide please.

so acknowledge that the massing is pushed back off the street front and a straightforward common development along the entirety of the hillside. the first four houses and the vacant lot are sort of patterned in group development and the first four houses on the left were built largely during the 1952 and we have the vacant three houses. and houses to the right were built in the 70s. and then the last four were built in 1953. kind of a pattern that we have identified where we have driveway, garages on the right. and entrances either at great or up to the first floor on the left hand side. that is the pattern that we informed and designed. next slide please. key element for us was to

acknowledge that the redwood tree would be in a position to be involved or part of the each of the building's daily life in that particular instance. i will note on the left side we have the adjacent property line window from 674 hamilton providing an offset on the building. on the righthand side we have the adjacent neighborhood light well that we are accommodating that is 660 hamilton. and again, you can get a sense of the alignment with how the buildings step up and back off the street. so that from the street front there is the degree of parity with regard to the adjacent neighbors. i can switch to the next slide. and i would tell you that for the most part, the adus that we are included on the ground floor and as the buildings step down the hill, you will note that we are at a point of slight parity

and 674 hamilton on the left and the roof at 176 is pushed back as is the case -- >> thank you, mr. kirby. that is your time. >> commissioner, we should go to public comment at this time. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3 to be entered into the queue. you will have two minutes. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> would you like to submit your testimony? you should mute your computer or your television.

caller, do you want to submit your testimony? >> caller: hello? >> yes. >> caller: first of all, good afternoon, commissioners. i am michael welch and i live at 649 hamilton street. i have been living here since 1975. i have two issues about this proposal. on the north side of 666 hamilton street, there is a cutdown or i think the word was remove two large trees. not the redwood tree. with the importance of climate change, trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. i think it would be hypocritical to remove these trees. second thing is parking. monday through friday after 5:00

p.m., no parking is available. in the 600 block of hamilton as well as the 500 block of hamilton. on the weekends, there is no parking available, period, because of all the cars. parking in driveways is not an option due to the small, short driveways. park the car on the driveway, you are risk $125 ticket for blocking the sidewalk. and the personal opinion is this is a bad idea. thank you. >> good afternoon. please let me know if you can hear me. my parent's home and my home is at 64 hamilton and try to speak quickly but clearly. and the designer and i design high-end residential homes around the bay area and a quick

note and if you have the ability to change opposition four on the san francisco property information map and if the planning commission is able to view the letter i wrote, and my family is not in opposition and you could categorize as pending. the number one question and the elderly parents and on the second zoom meeting and the intention to have the alternate site plan and was submitted to the planning department. and with the designs in san francisco and the site plan and preserving the redwood tree and considering the first home the entire lives and is detached on three side. we asked early on and mr. kirby

to give us a 3 foot distance. if you take a look at the current existing plan and we have for lack of a better word and detached nature from the abandoned building and number two, we wanted to ask a tiny commission and planning staff if they can enlighten us to the alternate site plan and overall the neighborhood has been supportive of mason kirby's development. and if you take a look at the zoom meetings, there were no known and in my profession, and that is 99% for the goal to get no no's. and take a look at the zoom meetings. everybody was "oprah" and the only question that we have why the existing home has to be demolished.

>> hello. speaking about 666 hamilton building. and it has survived two massive earthquakes and deserves more respect than demolition. and also has refurbishment and a piece of the house should always remain in the neighborhood and one of the first homes settled on this hill. the facade of the hold home should be kept and mason and kirby did something similar and with 223 and i don't think that this is -- oh, and in the documents and they call the neighborhood the excelsior. this is the portala. they haven't done the due diligence to educate themselves like we have said. we are not protesting the owner's right to build something on the site and along with losing a piece of history, we are losing an incredibly important piece of open space

and the benefits that it provides in carbon farming contribution and to the local fauna. we are vehemently protesting the current design and reduce the developer to reduce to two modest homes that fits into the existing character of the current neighborhood. and grossly designed that do not fit into the character of the community. as stewards of the community, and we do not understand why to lose a precious piece of open space and to accept more vehicular traffic and pollution and continued road erosion and exacerbating the parking situation to make millions of nonaffordable housing. this current project design does not add anything to the current neighborhood and we do not agree with the demolition of the structure and more research on the historical value and to the

city and to the neighborhood. thank you. >> caller: i am mare listen lynn ho, a resident of 643 hamilton street. we are residents of this neighborhood. we are very concerned about the new construction across the street from our house. this zoning is only for two houses and we are definitely not happy about building three houses in the block. the three-story is not in line with our neighborhood characteristic. i respect the fact that owner is trying to make some money as an investment and it is her right to do so, but as residents we have been living here for over 10 years and do not want the neighborhood to change. [please stand by]

-- the mere fact there's going

to three stories. there's no three story homes it's all two-story homes and we appreciate them trying to save the red wood trees but at the end of the day i feel they have done more to try to preserve and save [indiscernible]. thank you. >> members of the public. last call for public comment on the matter. press star then 3 to be added to the queue. commissioners, there's always -- [indiscernible]. >> clerk: i'm lance melon across the project at 666. we're very concerned about the new construction.

the zoning at 666 hamilton is only for two houses and not happy about them considering three house s. the three-story plan is not in line with our neighborhood. i respect the owner of this wants it make money on the investment and it's her right to do so but we residents have been living here over 10 years and don't want the characteristics of the neighborhood to change. we think two houses is all they should be allowed to build on that relatively small lot. the whole neighborhood is totally up and arms about this problem monstrosity of six units where there was one antique house before and a shame they consider tearing down the house, by the way. thank god they agreed to not cut the red wood trees. thank you, very much. now please leave the other two large trees alone next to it as well. the project is out of line. we need it to be congruent with

the rest of the neighborhood. the project is unsustainable and will have a bad environmental impact and also affect our property values. we're happy we'll be able to save the red wood tree. that's part of characteristics of the neighborhood but if you must tear down the old house at least keep it to two houses and two stories only. it's the right thing to do and to give the easement to the houses on either side of that house is not too much to ask and if were only two houses built, that would be able to be done. this town is very dense. we do not need more houses, certainly not multi million dollar house. progress not always i -- a good thing. thank you. >> i just wanted to -- this is

from 674 hamilton. am i allowed to speak twice? >> no, you're not, sir. thank you for letting us know. commissioners, public comment is now closed and the matter is now before you. >> i'll be supporting staff's recommendation. i think the increase of the residential units is great and the design has been well done. commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i did have a few questions for the applicant if they're still on the line. i want to understand more with the layout of the three additional homes and lot a and lot c with adjacent properties. if we can have those slides you were showing to walk us through the relationship between the

adjacent homes. i'd appreciate that. >> thank you, commissioner. i don't know if you can hear me. >> yes. >> i would request to take them to the proposed landscape plan. from the urban plan, perspective, you'll note a frontal alignment from lot c to 660 hamilton that exists on the lower floor and upper floor and any additional modifications to the massing occur as a setback of the lot c. i will also tell you we have a mirroring light rail more aptly

described in your packet on the detail of the floor plan i don't have access to but there's a light rail at 660 hamilton the second floor and then a notch to come date that. on lot a, we have acknowledged a treat front of 674 hamilton and have basically pulled back a slot, if you will, off the left side of lot a to allow for an adjacent property line and there won't be much of a view. that's a foul but at least we're not putting a blank wall directly in front of it. >> commissioner: so i understand the request that was from it sounds like at least one of the

neighbors, maybe both, was to have a three-foot setback on lot a and c and easement so they could, so they can access the rear yard and perform maintenance on their home? do you have a request of what the request was? >> -- an understanding of the request? >> in the context of lot a, i would tell you by the time you get to the rear yard there's a retaining yard or in the rear grade between the property at 674 and lot a. if i were to steer you to the existing site plan, is two back. it's existing and proposed site plan. thank you. this shows the existing condition of the historic house, if you will. you'll note one of the features about this existing dwelling is there are a variety of

unpermitted additions over time and there's an existing slot between 674 hamilton and what would be lot a in this particular entrance. i would, if i could in regards to 660 hamilton, maybe the boston way to illustrate that for you is the existing structure sheet. >> i can take a look but my main question is just to understand what the rationale for the offset is. you have the light walls so their windows are not blocked in the same way they may be but it sounded like the request for the offset -- i'm trying to understand if you have details from the neighbors. is it to perform maintenance or have more of a detached feel?

i'm trying to understand that. >> i was refer or request for further detail. there's obviously a question made by both 674 and 660. the thinking was they bought their house with no adjoining house next to them so why would they have a change. what we would acknowledge is there's a consistent regular street front pattern that's part of how the houses do march up the hill and i would be quick to show you two blank property line walls at 660 hamilton and 674 hamilton and the light rail or the property line window on 674. so you have never given a request to say we would like to buy an ease many you from to maintain -- easement from you to

maintain our property. >> that's helpful for me. thank you, sir. could you speak about the rear yard. we want permeable surfaces and trees and plannings to help the -- plantings to help the environment. do you have any plans how the rear yard will be landscaped or porous surface or permeable or paved? >> >> on all three of the proposed plans deck shown with on the left and right-hand side, that's almost at grade deck accessed by the adu the main unit usually --

not being able to point is tricky. the idea is we haven't committed to a landscape plan for lot a, b or c. we would acknowledge at the corner left most corner, if you will, there is on somebody else's property a fantastically wonderful tree that is almost larger than the red wood and it's a much more -- i'm going to misstate the species so i won't but there is a fantastic tree that exists at the corner of lot a we have not want to do anything with in that respect but we would leave the rest of the rear yards up to the -- we wouldn't commit to it be paved or anything like that.

>> i would support that. obviously future home owners, i'm assuming they're for sale as individual three homes, is that correct? >> i believe the property owner has intention of living in one of these and -- >> i would support the plans in terms of the rear yard. i would like to see it remain a pourous surface but not become a concrete paved situation. some patio paves allow for permeation of water and hope to see landscaping there. would love to hear thoughts about the landscaping. i want to commend the preservation of the red wood trees. i think it's fabulous. it's such a great --'s great to see you -- it's great to see you

have reacted in that way and have been able to accommodate the tree. it did leave me curious, some publics we heard from the public were around parking particularly on street parking. looks like lot a and c would have garage space for one car, maybe two depending on how they move their cars into and out of their garage space but then lot a would have no onsite parking, is that correct? >> that's a true statement. we have the idea that we're replacing two on site or swapping two on site for two off site. >> that is partly in response to preserving the tree. >> to be fair, the tree is where website. it works out fairly well to create the unique urban precinct

surrounding it. we looked at the built to have any kind of parking for lot b and it's just not technically feasible. >> great. okay. i want to recommend the relatively equity between the size of the unit and dwelling unit. that's great to see. i'm happy to see the decks or the adu so they have open space, which is excellent. and i want to ask to confirm what we have in the report these are three code compliant lots and each of those three lots meets our code dimensions for what a standard lot must comply with is that correct? >> that is correct, yes. >> as far as lot line windows, can you explain to the public how the city treats lot line

windows on adjacent properties? >> so we don't necessarily speak to ventilation and design issues we take them into account for discretionary permits but my understanding is there's no requirement in our code or properties that property line windows be left open whether completely open with a few but something we tend to encourage and in the design some remained opened. there's access rather than the blank wall. to sum it up there's no requirement adjacent windows tend to be left open but something we recommend. >> thank you very much.

those are all my questions and to the members of the public that wrote in, i understand change can be difficult and i certainly understand what it means to have to have a tough parking situation possibly made more challenging to the degree the future residents of these units have vehicles that don't have accommodative parking and looking for on street parking. i know it's a challenge and can be tough to deal with. it's no fun to circle and look for parking or park far from your home. i can appreciate that challenge but i think these are well designed units. i'm appreciative of the tree preservation and i support this project. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it's an exceptional example for residential dense fiction and low-density single

family neighborhoods. the it goes with the simple idea of equity and unit size and all the small almosts that make a good design. what i'd like to point out to the commission and to the planning department the package for this project is a great example of what should we be expecting. i do not have anything but to commend the project for its creativity and densifying on the large slot and it exceeds the typical 25 foot lot in san francisco and does it in a manner that creates the type of units which are not mega

mansioning but share equitable adu design and i'm in full support and make a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> not only was the project sponsor responsive to the neighbors but creates a more beautiful and interesting project and one that is more respectful of what exists previously. i think the neighbors helped the project sponsor improve the project significantly by the retention of the tree. >> if there's nothing further there's a motion to be seconded with conditions. on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> aye.

>> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> clerk: it places uts us on item number 12, case 2020-00 6747cua. are you ready for the presentation? >> i'm michael christianson. this is a request for condition use authorization. pursuant to the code to establish an approximately 1,300 cannabis retail use on the existing second floor of a building at 3109 fillmore street

and on the west side of fillmore street between filbert and pixley street. the neighborhood commercial district is an east-west district running along union street sept -- except this part that connects to lombard street and there are no other locations under review. the site is compliant with the

600 set foot rule and at the closest approved and cannabis retailer is at 2404 lombard approximately 625 feet of the site. the staff reports preschools in the general vicinity which is it not does qualify the site to be a cannabis retailer. in reviewing the request staff noted the neighborhood fully lacks any legal place for persons to consume cannabis products. the lounges are more than a mile away in the tenderloin neighborhood. and a member of public expressed concern with the bar use on the ground floor given mixing alcohol and cannabis may be a

health and safety product. staff conditions a condition of approval. additionally, the commission could further limit the hours of operation to avoid conflicts at late night. an equity concerns it is recommended to provide legal regulated place for consumption of cannabis somewhere in the neighborhood. prior to packet publication last week staff received four e-mails ib opposition generally citing concern over public intoxication. the department received two letters in support and an addition 15 in opposition to the project. the letters in support cited the need for additional outlet in the concern of noise and attract

homeless individuals and the use is not compatible with the number of preschools in the general area. staff reviewed the location site and the site is not disqualified given the rule applies to k through 12 schools. the locations are sited in the staff -- cited in the staff report. given the cite complies with the rule provide as a new outlet for cannabis s in a neighborhood that has historically not accommodated these uses and creating a greater business of the uses on the city and complies with all other retirements of the planning code

and policies of the general plan. staff recommends approval of condition. this con includes my presentation and i'm available for more presentations and i have the presentation for the commission. >> mr. paul you have five minutes. >> thank you. thank you mr. christianon. michael you did a great job on this case and we appreciate all the attention you gave to it. this proposal is for medicinal and recreational uses and there's additional uses that have existed many decade. i in fact shopped for a wedding dress there in the late '80s and i'm familiar with the space. the applicants are local san francisco born and bred kids.

one the equity applicant is a graduate of salburton. they know san francisco and they care deeply about this neighborhood reagan has owned a comic club in the building for many years and has gained a representation of being very concerned about the quality of the neighborhood. he is currently president of the merchant's association and i worked with them 15 years ago when he sought to add entertainment to the comet club and through that conditional use process the neighbors were able to really voice their concerns and their compliments about his management of the comet club and things have improved further since then. the neighborhood is very strong in restaurants and retail business and we believe this use

will enhance foot traffic for those businesses our goal is to create a positive impact on the neighborhood in all respects. it's been the desire of the applicants from start in designing this space. they hired ross levy as an architect to create a unique and special environment for their retail space and to create a consumption lounge such that those in the neighborhood who need access to medical cannabis but cannot consume in their apartments, one must remember cal hallo in the marina, there's a lot of apartments down there and almost all would prohibit consumption in the apartment so it's really needed in the

community. in our pre-application and outreach meetings, we discussed this a lot with our neighborhoods and came to some accommodations. this is the plan of the second floor that shows you what we got. the consumption lounge to the rear, keep in mind it's nothing like the consumption lounges we're used to in the south of market or the tenderloin. this is a very small space. this is a 20-foot long room that will accommodate at most maybe 12 people at a time. it is not a gathering place for long-term use. it's intended to provide a place so people don't need to make

their purchase and then go to the sidewalk or go to a park or find a doorway. with the work with the neighborhoods we determined it would not be appropriate to provide access to the director consumption. we're going to require consumption occurs within the lounge and there'll be compliance so the exhaust systems ensures there's no smell or smoke to drift into neighbor's windows. we worked closely with those neighbors. they trust mr. capone's business practices from the past and have confidence it will be well executed. i should add if there are any problems resulting from the consumption lounge, we would cease that operation. frankly, it is not a cash

generating operation. it's not something to help this business make a lot of money. it's an amenity desirable for the community. they want to dedicate the space to make that work. mr. davis is committed to that as he'll be the onsite manager. there's been late opposition letters that have come in. >> that's the time. >> i'm available for questions. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to enter the 2002 by pressing star then 3 for public comment. you have up to two minutes. >> i'm calling up support of

this. i think it would be great for equity and inclusion as mr. davis is a minority candidate and would be a minority business owner in the city and the fact he has a hometown voice is great we'll be providing a service to the community and giving back. thank you. very much. >> i own a building near fillmore and i oppose this use permit and request there be further study on the traffic impact as well as the impact on the various preschools and

middle school children in our neighborhood. we have in our building and on our block, families. we all 100% do not support dispensary. there's one less than a mile away on lombard street. we feel this would make it even more difficult for families to live in the neighborhood. it's not just a neighborhood for bars and restaurants. i would oppose and the comment made that this is not a cash operation, that's exactly what it is. there's a variety of studies, the most coming from colorado where pot dispensaries have

increased in denver and we've seen crime up. the neighborhood does not support this. the neighborhoods with families that are residential do not support this. thank you very much. >> my name is barbara argo and i'm very familiar with the applicant and i would like to speak in support of his proposal for the dispensary. as the bay view opera house has hired deshaun on a regular basis as a photographer and video grapher and has always done a great job and responsible and easy to work with and works well with his subjects he's photographing, being really

friendly and outgoing and making people feel comfortable and i have no doubt he would run the dispensary in a responsible fashion and friendly to the neighborhood and not become a center of criminal activity as has been expressed. he is not that kind of person. i fully support his application and also i wanted to say it's great a young african american man has an opportunity to open a business that may be profitable for him, hopefully, in an area that is not a traditional black neighborhood because we need to integrate the city 100%. thank you. >> thank you, i'm markus tar from the bay view. i want to speak on behalf of the

equity applicant deshaun davis. i couple things, first, high quality individual. integrity, character, values, respect. all very high quality. in turn he will operate a high quality business. he's been trained. that's what we do. we provide resources and training to under resourced individuals and entrepreneurs. he understands the market. he understanding the challenges and i agree with the last speaker. he's a community person so he'll be able to address the needs in the community. the last part is equity. i'm glad i heard that word used a lot of and means something different for people and people have been incarcerated for this very business and for just to him to get to this point right now, it's been very challenging.

so for equity for a lot of people it's still very elusive so i'm hoping you will approve this application. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> caller: i think that's me. this is beth palmer sigler. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: i live around the corner from the proposed smoking lounge in fact i can see it right now as i look out my office win dor right now and an owner in a four-bedroom

condominium and have known the pleasure of knowing them and his son and they've been terrific residents and worked with us on sound from the comet club in order to be good neighbors. they have been speaking with us about their proposed lounge in order to make sure our privacy is protected as well as sound and smoke and we support the idea of a legal business in our community. there are a number of closed empty store fronts on that block in union and on the block between fillmore between greenwitch and filbert and we don't like seeing empty store fronts. we'd like to see a legal business well thought out. they'll have security as required and they've been working with the residents. my husband and i support the business and we think reagan and his colleagues are good

neighbors and are in support. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm a san francisco native. i have also known them and they'll be responsible and make sure the community is safe and no consequences will become of this business. i believe the ventilation system they designed will prevent anything from causing the neighbors to smell which is great. i think it will be an asset to the community. i support it. thank you.

>> caller: my name is jessica douglas native resident of san francisco and work in the marina and would love to have a consumption lounge. i'm for this. it would be a nice change of pace also, i believe they mentioned there's many bars around the neighborhood and i heard the person who had the concern about increase of about what it would bring people to the neighborhood. i believe you won't see the same people come out of the bar and what i heard from deshaun davis and his associate they're good people and very much for the community and for listening to their neighborhoods on if there are any concerns that arise. that is all i had to say, thank you.

>> caller: hello. i've known deshaun davis for some years. he's a responsible upstanding citizen and i believe in his business practices and work ethic. i'm confident he will operate this business very responsibly and be able to handle any challenges that are on him. thank you very much >> caller: hi, i'm betty pitman. i'm a home owner. i've been here 40 years. i support this. i am not a cannabis user and i would really love for them to have somewhere to go and not be out on the street so i do approve of this. thank you for hearing what i have to say.

>> i'm calling in support of the deshaun davis and what he's trying to do. i believe it's a great idea. i think that it's great for the community. i think. provide employment for some people in the community. i think deshaun is a responsible guy and i worked with him for a while now and he's considerate and also very generous. thank you. >> caller: i'm a san francisco res den and believe it's a good contribution to the community and those who are cannabis user and have nowhere to go and

practice privately in a safe manner and giving people a space and he will take responsibility in in the work he does and providing work for the community and i'm behind this and back this 100% and hope you guys consider it. >> caller: thank you, commissioners. i am deshaun davis. i'm the equity applicant on the application. >> clerk: i need to interrupt. as part of the project team your time to speak is part of the presentation and i'll mute you and your commissioners may have questions for you later and call you up.

>> caller: i'm ruth mathison and reside on pixly street. i oppose the proposed location for cannabis for retail and onsite smoking lounge. as one of many families on the street we see this unfit for the family neighborhood community and unlike the earlier speaker, i think it was ms. henly, let's look at doing a little bit more research on about what this means to the impact of the whole neighborhood. i think other callers who are supported the people who are applying for this permit, may be great citizens and that's great but from a perspective of what this may bring to our community,

especially i live 409 feet away there are going to be some impacts and there's things that need to be considered. with that said, i'm concerned for many of the students, families as well as the overall projection of what we want this neighborhood to be. i object and i would appreciate the consideration. thank you. >> caller: hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you fine. >> caller: i've worked in the marina many years as well as for reagan. i'm calling to show my support on the cannabis dispensary. reagan cares deeply for his neighborhood and i think this

would be -- sorry, my phone just caught -- cut out. as someone who grew up in the area i think this would compliment businesses to the area and bring in new people which would be nice to see. with the surrounding bars and shops the cannabis store would be a great addition. so many benefit from marijuana. i would like to see them to expand their variety of businesses which brings charm to the neighborhood. the location would benefit myself greatly as well as so many others. thanks so much. >> caller: i'm danielle king-wright and giving a call to support deshaun davis and he's done his research and anything he ties his name to or brand and

will hold people account and bring integrity. i don't think it would negatively affect the community as he talks to people in the community. i am in support for this and i ask for your consideration to support his cause. thank you. >> caller: hello, i'm calling in favor of this proposal. my name is josh. i'm a bay area almost native. been here about 15 years right now and i know deshaun davis. he is a great person, business man, a pillar of his community. and remember so many years ago when things like cannabis were incorrectly demonized and unsupported and didn't have a place to go. i like this has an addition to give pem -- people the outlet

besides alcohol and bars there. i'm very much in support of this. thank you for your time. >> caller: good afternoon, community members. my name is arsenio hernandez and i'm an s.f. native and work within san francisco and have been my whole life to various degrees. i'm in support of mr. davis. i can speak to his character as i've had the opportunity to work with him over the better part of a decade now. i can't say the same for a lot of my peers and associated around san francisco and i've had ventures within music, business and creating pathways for other younger members of the

community who may not have access to the experiences myself or mr. davis has. he's always shown careful consideration of people to the neighborhood and i don't know of anyone better to bring the accessibility of a marijuana dispensary for people to have access and i talk about the area of the community because looking at the map and what's accessible to people who are there now, they have to venture out and having something nearby and local would be of great support to those who live within the direct and i'm in support of mr. davis. thank you for your time. >> hi, this is mary. i live half a black from the

comet club i object to the shop because there's also a concern about the traffic. right now we have shake shack hogging up parking spaces and also the school district. it's 600 feet from a school is not -- there won't be a school but there may be a preschool and i would like the commission to look it to other schools around and no doubt deshaun davis is a good high quality business man and has many fans because our callers have worked with him and not necessarily lived in this area. i have been living here with the family and other families on the

block over 30 years and we mate to see this place to turn into a crime place. right now there's a lot of crimes not only because of the covid-19 but a study should be made regarding the foot traffic and car traffic and also the school children and families around. you only spoke to businesses around your block but maybe you need to expand one or two blocks over. we're the residential people who are concerned. i agree with patricia henly and the other lady who spoke from pixly alley. thank you. >> can everybody hear me? >> we can hear you.

>> i'm joey davis. i'm a san francisco native. i've known deshaun davis the majority of my life and has always been a pillar in his community. he always think about everybody else first and his first go-to is to help his community. he's always been that way and i believe that this business is one of the ways he can help 100%. so i am 100% supportive of this and i do hope you guys give him ray chance. thank you. -- give him a chance. thank you >> caller: this is annie. can everybody hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: i'm a san francisco native and used to work with reagan at the milk bar and support the cannabis dispensary at 3109 fillmore and think it

will be an excellent place for people to congregate and for mental wellness and marijuana should not have any negative stigma. that's part of the past, i think. i think blocking it shows the neighborhood is supporting inequity and we should support our local community and will provide work for everybody and provide work for drivers. think it's a great idea. i support it 100%. >> caller: hello. can i be heard? i'm a 25 year cal hollow resident and have a business in the area and several of my

customers are for this proposal. they're married women with children of all ages and enjoy cannabis and would like to get what they need and maybe sample it and get their hair done and eyebrows down and get their cannabis and be on their way. there's a lot of support for it and i know reagan say -- is a stand up person and will go to any length to make sure things are done right. that's it. thank you. ja members of the public, i'd like to remind you, when you hear your line has been unmuted, that means we'll be able to hear what you have to say and you don't need to ask if you can be heard. if you can't be heard, i'll ask. we'll take the next caller, thank you. >> caller: i'm calling in

support for this proposition for the cannabis dispensary. i can't help but think over the course of the last year we've been decimated hard by covid-19 and only now are things finally starting to open up and i think to myself business. it's a new business and they'll hire people and managers and it will help local businesses with foot traffic making the economy blossom and i think it's a good idea. i'm in support of that 100% and would like to see this go through. hopefully you guys see it the same way. beyond that, have a wonderful day, everybody. >> i'm phillip johnson in support of the business of deshaun davis. i've worked with him not only as a former director and former

president of the nyaacp and worked on economic reform and advancement for youth. he has outstanding business acumen and a great sense of equity and community and would do a fine job in promoting a healthy and sustainable and fair business in the community. >> caller: i'm calling in support of them and i've known him 25 years and one of the most meticulous individuals whether personal or business life. i there was concern about a consumption lounge increasing

traffic and possible criminal activity. if his consumption lounge were to cause an issue he would cut that immediately. the fact he's taking in suggestions is great. you want your local business owners to be able to listen to the community and affect change that way. i'm in support of the proposal. thank you for hearing me out. >> caller: hi, i'm gino i live and work in the marina and wanted to call and voice my support and have grown marijuana my entire life and got a bad wrap and better than alcohol and i use the medicine every day and live in the marina and an easier

place to access it would be awesome. thank you for considering this. god bless you. >> caller: i'm willie green frequenter of the marina and call in support of regan and in support for legacy of san francisco residents. thank you for hearing me. >> caller: my name is cathy. i'm in favor of the medical marijuana dispensary because as more people are finding relief from cannabis, we have discovered it's definitely true. we need to have more area for people to go especially if they're not feeling well and expect them to go far to get their medicine. this is a good area if it doesn't have what is needed right now. i support this would be welcomed

here and i don't foresee any specific problems coming from this as this is for people who are in need of it and have specific reasons to use it so thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. be press and then 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line's been unmuted it's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: good afternoon, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you just fine. >> caller: thank you. my name is christine. i've lived in cal hollow 30 years and raised my family here and i just like to clarify an important point.

our neighborhood is aging. yes, we do have some young families but primarily we have elders. we have middle age people who are aging and we do have some older folks. crossing lombard to get to the other location is an unpleasant experience for these folks. i've accompanied some just to get there. i think having a shop within the neighborhood, which is accessible to the elders is very important. we're speaking of diversity. we must not forget those people and i support the project and appreciate your time. thank you. >> caller: i'm walt taylor coming in support of the project

and deshaun davis. i think the project is important for the neighborhood and i know deshaun and his team very well. they go through a lot to dispel the negative stigma around the use of cannabis and the business around cannabis that day is way behind us. thank you. [please stand by]

>> my name is reginald curry. i working san francisco currently. i and support of the cannabis

lounge dispensary. also i know the people who are going to greenwich. i have known for over a decade that there is a visual of high moral fabric. i have listened to several of the people who are concerned in the neighborhood and i would just say that as an original person from san francisco, please consider that, again, san francisco has been changing what they look like and so i will say that is important. i in support. thank you. >> okay, commissioners.

that will conclude public comment. public comment is now closed. the matter is now before you. so just so starting off, i in favor of the project as proposed. it would be beneficial for the neighborhood and the close congestion of all the buildings. but i would like to hear other commissioners. commission moore? >> i in support of the project. there are always opposing and supporting points. but this time it is well-thought-out. thank you. >> commissioner chan? >> i am also happy to support

this project and especially to help our small businesses out of tight -- at this time. it contributes to geographical and equity cannabis retail in a district that had not had access and had limited access. i want to see if any other commissioners have comments otherwise i would move to approve this. >> second. >> commissioner done? >> i very much in favor of the project and definitely agree with commissioner chan about geographical equity. i do like the idea that there is a place where people can consume when they're limited to doing so in their apartments. it is better in a consumption lounge then on the street or in a park. i did have one question for staff about condition 15. we don't usually see this condition on cannabis or i haven't seen it before. my understanding is that it is

here in response to the concern that perhaps the state, in response to restate issue regarding mixing alcohol and cannabis, and that although i assume it is a different legal entity from upstairs and downstairs, it is the same owner. if you could give more background on that, and also, how the planning department will enforce this. any customers who appear to be under the influence of alcohol should be denied entry into the establishment. how is the project sponsor going to determine whether or not they are under the influence of alcohol and more importantly, how will the planning department in force that condition? >> sure. there are potentially some issues when you have cannabis and alcohol mixing. one of them is there is somebody consuming cannabis and alcohol

establishment then -- there is close proximity of the bar and the cannabis consumption uses and the fact that it is not desirable for someone to mix the two substances. consuming alcohol and consuming cannabis causes the rate at which your blood absorbs t.h.c. to increase rapidly. especially if there is a person who might not be familiar with cannabis and is trying it and they may be very surprised at how quickly it can happen and it can be jarring. it was really more just to discourage that activity. to your point. it will be somewhat difficult. staff doesn't have a lot of options to pretend to be drunk and go intestate. we will be incorporating it into the required operating plan and

security plan they get forward to the city office of cannabis. they will do regular inspections once they have enough sites to really do that. the enforcement will be mostly through the licensing agreement through the city office of cannabis. >> thank you so much for that clarification. i too am in support of this project. >> commissioner tanner? >> thank you. i also very supportive of this project. i did have a question. i don't know if you will have the answer to this. some of the folks who wrote in an provided testimony spoke about smoking of cigarettes that is going on in the alley. i assuming people are working or they are patrons of the bar or may bring establishments going to smoke cigarettes there. cannabis would be consumed in the upstairs. the question for you regarding, is there anything those folks can do to address the complaints around the cigarette smoke? if it is going into people's home, it is not lawful. is that correct?

>> my understanding is it is not legal to be smoking cigarettes in close proximity to businesses and residences. i honestly would not know the proper enforcement mechanism for that. with this, if there is -- with cannabis it is easier to identify if someone were to see somebody exit the store, walk outside, then say late a joint on a stoop. it is something that can cause a suspension of a license or finds against the business. that is an activity they are supposed to control. what other types of activities that might already be in the area, like cigarette smoking, is not directly related. >> okay. we will encourage the operator if they can or are related to or connected to the bar operations,

if, in fact, they are bar patrons to really discourage that activity from taking place. especially in proximity residences. it is not lawful, but it is disturbing and it is bothering people. and the only other question i have for the operator, the hours of operation are allowed to be 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. do they have a planned hour of operation for the establishment about really they would operate and how late they would operate? >> yes. we do expect midday to closing. we will experiment with earlier closing of the consumption lounge. we are very, very careful to manage that to make sure it doesn't have a negative impact on the bars and restaurants on

that stretch of fillmore or on the residence adjacent. we will start with the 10:00 p.m. and if we find that it is going to work better and if we start closing earlier upstairs, we certainly will. there will be security on the street. no one will be going upstairs without clearing that security. it will be very easy for those folks to determine whether there is anybody who is exiting a bar inebriated. we don't want that kind of trouble. we will not allow them up. >> excellent. and that same entrance and exit, will they be coming out of a going out of the same entrance? >> that's correct. it is down the block from this location. it is where people tend to go to

walk down and have a smoke because there is no traffic there. it has been a recognized problem for nightlife community for decades there. i understand the concern and we will make sure we don't contribute to it in a negative faction -- fashion. >> thank you very much. i supportive of this. thank you. >> a question for the project sponsor. mr. paul, does this proposed use have to conform to current a.d.a. requirements? >> thank you for this question. as the second floor has a history of retail uses for going back 30 or 40 years, i do not believe there will be a change of use because we are going from one retail use to another. we will be complying with a.d.a.

in terms of the percentage of our construction cost and that will go towards improvements and access creating an accessible restroom and improving things like door handles and safety features throughout. however,, providing access to the space for a wheelchair, for instance, which is the most extreme example, i don't believe that would be required because there is no change of use. to accommodate those patrons who might not be able to negotiate the stairs, we will have a tablet available with security at the door so they can do online ordering at the location itself and we can deliver the product to that patron at the time. we have thought out carefully

how we are going to address those issues and i believe dvi will not require anything beyond the 20% requirement. >> have you confirmed with d.b.i. on that? >> we have spoken with them about the existing retail uses. we are not changing use at this location. >> if you had to put an elevator in here, you would have to provide a new entry. i would guess that this building is a board resource? >> it is. it is a 1917 victorian. >> okay. my fellow commissioners, i would support the location for this proposed use. however, i'm not supportive of the consumption lounge.

>> commissioner moore? >> i have an additional question for mr. paul. you're consumption lounge has operable windows that are sliding from what i can tell. how do you ensure that these windows are accidentally not opened while they are in use? it is the dispersion of smoke that may bother other people and to ensure that the windows do remain closed. >> thank you, commissioner moore for that question. we will have an on-site monitor in the consumption lounge at all times to make sure that the system and filtration system are operating properly. those would not operate properly if those doors or windows are

opened. so those aren't going to be things that will be available to the patrons and we will be carefully monitoring the use of the space. you heard from beth palmer earlier in public comment. she was one of the neighbors whose windows would be most affected by this and we have explored, at great length, the possible impact of smoke and we are committed to not letting that happen. >> thank you. >> mr. christian, did you have any comments? >> yes, if i may ask, that permit, if approved, would be also reviewed by the health department. that does require that the designated consumption room must be airtight and no smoke or older can escape from the room

-- no smoke or older can escape from the room. >> the drawing indicates that those are operable windows. we all know people who don't quite understand these rules. covid taught that to all of. i just want to make sure that there is a need for provisions, which i think mr. paul very well explained. i think i'm fine. thank you. >> call the question? >> commissioners, i would, but i haven't heard a motion. >> i believe commissioner chan

wrote a motion and i seconded it. >> my apologies. on that motion that has been seconded... [roll call] thank you, commissioners. that motion passes 6-1. that will places under your discretionary review calendar for item 13. this is a discretionary review. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. jonas, can you confirm that you can hear me? >> i feel like i in a verizon commercial. [laughter]. >> just making sure. good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you is a

request for discretionary review for the proposed project. it includes the establishment of a limited restaurant use, a coffee shop doing businesses the creamery coffee shop on the ground floor of a commercial space. it is in a newly constructed seven-story residential building. the property is located within the um you zoning district. the requesters have a couple of concerns which have been outlined in your staff report which include concerns over competition to the existing restaurants within the local vicinity. basically concerns over gentrification, which leads to high rent, combined with economic pressures and the project is antithetical. since the publication of the staff packet, we have received a number of public correspondence regarding the proposed request

for a discretionary review. they have included a survey that is expressing opposition which includes 70 members of the public and four businesses. the department did receive one letter in support. most of them have been forwarded on to the commission for their consideration. the department recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. with the planning section, it is pensively committed during -- in the zoning district. this concludes staff presentation and i around for any questions. i will just confirmed that the d.r. requester and the project sponsor do not have a visual presentation. thank you. >> thank you. d.r. requester, you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, planning commissioners. is my audio okay?

>> it is. >> thank you. i a member of the mission base cultural action network. an organization dedicated to protecting cultural workers and artists in the mission. we also work to protect small businesses, arts, and cultural spaces from displacement. the developers of the proposed site are asking for a conversion from retail to limited restaurant use. the legacy neighborhood serving businesses in the area near the location have been a staple for the local mission residents four years. since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, these businesses have faced enormous challenges to stay afloat. the expected tenant that this space is the creamery coffee shop and this new, large, upscale resource competitor.

that is not what the coffee shop and cafés need to. many of them are immigrant run and family run businesses. this includes many different businesses. they need to, in these painful times, it is not what they need in these already painfully difficult times. the expected impact of this project would be specific to the area plan. especially the land use quotes to make sure the mission remains a center for immigrants. it means protecting the staff

and where goods and services are oriented to serve the needs of the community. the mission area policy commits to protect and support latino and other culturally significant local businesses, property, and institutions in the mission. this proposed conversion is in direct opposition to the mission area which gives the commission clear by -- guidance and instruction on stabilizing the neighborhood and its culture. further, san francisco planning code section 754 mission three neighborhood transit district comments to preserve the contributions of legacy businesses to the history and

identity of the district. the conversion proposal cannot counter the guidance of the commission that is given by the policy to preserving legacy business. >> that is your time. so we should go to the project sponsor. you have three minutes. >> thank you. before i introduce the owner of the creamery, it has operated for over 12 years and it is being displaced by one of the central soma projects. it will not be displacing any businesses. this d.r. is a process that is exactly the kind of small business that the proper h. is approved by the voters that was designed to prevent. [indiscernible]

the only reason it is not applicable here is because -- [indiscernible] small businesses should not face these kinds of hurdles. this is the case of what small businesses have faced in the covid-19 pandemic. there are no extraordinary circumstances. [indiscernible] >> i emigrated to san francisco over 30 years ago. after being a successful beverage manager, i opened the

creamery with my savings and loans. [indiscernible] this has continued to grow. over the next 10 years, my leadership as the general manager and the owner, i built the creamery business into an international brand that is recognized around the world by tourists and by people who -- [indiscernible] it is one of the most influential people -- places to meet people who want to converse and talk about -- [indiscernible] there are a number of nature companies in store.

[indiscernible] i feel that my business model worked very well. my staff were very loyal over the 12 years i was there and i would like my staff to return to work in the loop -- new location in the mission where they live and are awaiting to move forward. i have continued to support them through covid and would assist them in any way possible. we are a destination and i looking to move to a new location in the mission to try and re-create the business that i had. >> thank you, sir. that concludes your time for the project presentation. we should go to public comment. this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing start and three to be added to the cue. queue. you will have one minute.

>> good evening, planning commissioners. i work in the neighborhood. i'm calling into ask the commissioners to reject the conversion of the mission sight to convert their retail space to a high-end café. as a regular patron of legacy businesses of the sandwich shop, i have always appreciated these cafés because of their down-to-earth customer service and treatment of all patrons of all backgrounds and other optimism of continuing on during the pandemic. it is unfair that we are holding onto these economic and troubling times by considering opening a new café they don't have roots in the community. this proposal will put negative -- legacy neighborhood cafés -- [indiscernible] but we need in the neighborhood is community service retail, like the pharmacy, for example. instead of saturating our

neighborhoods with uses we already have. we deserve more community serving businesses, like any other part of the city. i asked the commissioners to deny the proposal. thank you very much. >> go ahead. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners. i work for the mission economic development agency. i calling to ask the commissioners to refuse the conditional use a request of the site to convert to a retail space to a high-end café. i have been meeting here for the past six months with about 12

small businesses along the corridor. one thing is clear is that they have struggled long enough to stay afloat during the pandemic and they are already struggling during the pandemic. so the approval of this would put legacy neighborhood cafés and further financial jeopardy to compete for customers and put pressure on their commercial leases. as someone who also is in the neighborhood, i would like to continue to see businesses that serve the goods and services that we need in our corridor, not more high-end cafés. we want to continue to preserve the identity and the legacy of our community and that means -- >> thank you, that is your time. >> hello. can you hear me?

>> yes, we can hear you. >> hi. i a born and raised native in the mission. i calling on you to ruse -- lose -- refuse the conditional use request to convert to the retail space. our community is in solidarity with supporting our small businesses in these hard economic times. they are an integral piece of the mission's social fabric. i also feel as a resident and as a born native, a lot of businesses are coming up. there is no real communication or even an outreach to us who are living here. and the community benefits will never reach the actual community. so i asking for the commission

to deny the mission permit. thank you for considering my concerns. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i with united to save the mission. i lived a few doors down from this location and our business owners have been our family for the past 20 years that we have lived here. these business owners feel they have not been seen, have no agency and that the planning department allowed to this application to be pushed through without outreach or proper assessment. the proposed project is a clear contradiction with the mission area plan. there is no mention of the area plan. the mere -- the american district. there is no mention of the saturation of legacy cafés and the retailers. new retailers have locations

that are built in the same block and are being used for high-end office space or being held vacant by landlords who market them at high rent. making them inaccessible to new, small, or immigrant businesses who do not possess significant capital. is insane that this would be changed and require costly buildout when we desperately need retailers. we need their café locations -- >> thank you, that is your time. >> hi, my name is marie sorensen. small businesses in the mission quarter have struggled long enough. it will put the legacy maker -- neighborhood cafés that have always been there serving our working community and further financial jeopardy to compete for customers and put undue pressure on their rent.

the mission is suffering from cutting trees on 24th street, high-end cafés, slow streets, and the new plan for staff -- it is really destroying it. please deny it. thank you. >> my name is george. i am the owner of the new market. 100 feet away from the proposed café. in my humble opinion, the last thing we need after all of this covid and the suffering that we went through is another eating establishment. we almost have a café or restaurant on every corner in six square blocks. i have been on the block since 19808.

i have seen the changes and i don't think we need to upgrade the mission to that extent. it would be detrimental to the community and to serve the people that are living in the mission. thank you. >> hello, my name is martin. i and educator for sfusd in the mission district. i calling into ask the commissioners to refuse the conditional use request to convert the retail space through a hot -- to a high-end café. there is already more than enough high-end cafés in the mission being born and raised here. i've seen many families and many immigrants who have been living in the mission be evicted and be kicked out, not only by landlords, but also by the

culture in the neighborhood. if you approve a high-end café like this, it will continue to do exactly what these cafés do, which is pushed out the people who are already here. we need to create things and create atmospheres where we can solidify and sustain culture rather than destroy it. please do not approve this request. and q. -- thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i a mission resident and i calling to ask that you refuse the request. i don't think another café is what the community needs right now. it might actually hurt the existing community. thank you.

>> go ahead. >> sorry, i a lifelong resident of the mission district and i calling to request that the commissioners refuse conditional request here. especially after all this time with covid, a lot of these legacy businesses have been under intense pressure to be able to stay afloat. this is not what we need. this is not what will help, what will benefit the community, or those who struggle to remain here. learning to be more of an emphasis on preserving the businesses we have rather than introducing a well-funded, well oiled machine to be able to push these businesses out. we need something for us. something that represents the people of the mission district. this is not what this is about.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i a 19 year business owner. we acknowledge it is a fragile ecosystem. this change of use proposal proposes a great impact. when he failed to provide what is needed, you get a collapse in the community cannot bear the collapse. [indiscernible] we have two laundromats, two barbershops, two bars serving nighttime one restaurant afternoon, a pet groomer, clothing shop, and within this radius, this would be the six limited service overlapping with the same service, and 75 feet

from where george just spoke about. [indiscernible] it lays out the conflicts with the mission variant. take the d.r. let's work together as a community to get the right fit for this ecosystem. not something that will collapse. thank you. >> okay. members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press start then three. -- press star then three. >> we are not in support of this project. we have worked with hundreds of businesses, small businesses,

immigrant businesses in the mission district. one thing i want to mention, is this will not protect us from social inequities. i believe this is about inequity. if you have someone who has small daughters who will come into the neighborhood, they could be possibly displaced. we need other things in the area. this is about racial and social inequities from the past that we need to fix. >> okay. public comment is closed. the matter is now before you, commissioners.

>> i do have the question. i will interrupt. isn't this d.r.? isn't there a chance for rebuttal first? >> commissioner diamond, thank you for being on top of that. i do apologize to the project sponsor and d.r. requester. you have a total minute rebuttal. >> thank you very much. i just want to say this approval will to add two, not reduce. mr. bradley said the café is a destination site, which is contrary to the mission area plan objectives and will add to gentrification. almost 1800 square feet, the size of the proposed project, is

far larger than can be afforded by neighborhood immigrant businesses. and only adds to the oversized impact of this proposal. and extreme gentrification leading to high rent, combined with economic pressures being phased by the pandemic make new high-end competition the last thing immigrant owned or run cafés in the close vicinity of the project. i therefore, ask that you file a clear policy direction that you have been giving to the code to protect the businesses, to protect legacy businesses, and to keep the mission the center for immigrants and take discretionary review action to refuse the proposal for this site to convert retail space to

a high-end café. thank you. >> you have a two minute rebuttal. >> go ahead. >> please go ahead. >> we can hear him. >> what i was going to say is the creamery is open to all members of the community. not simply just for business members to make deals. there is seating, foodservice, there is shops in the neighborhood and limited seating. this would be an opportunity for a gathering place for all

members of the neighborhood. it is open to all. it is employee based and it is diverse. we do believe that this café can be a neighborhood asset. it is not going to be -- it is a small enough space and it will not affect much beyond the area. it is not a major gentrifying issue. at 14th and mission street there are no other sit down coffeehouses. we believe that this is an appropriate use of the site. this is the d.r. [indiscernible] we don't think there is any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that would warrant the commission.

>> thank you. commissioner president koppel, there is a late request for public comment. shall we reopen public comment? >> yes. >> okay, you have one minute. >> commissioners, good evening. i calling today. i was actually a neighbor of the project. i calling in today to ask a couple questions about specifically why we are stopping immigrant businesses from coming into the neighborhood. particularly because businesses that are within the range that have been mentioned particularly for mission street, within 100 feet, the coalition is a marketplace. of course, there is limited seating when it comes into place. across the store is a coffee shop, but there is limited foot traffic in the area due to the

fact there is only a limited amount of transportation nearby. it is contradictory to the mission of usm. it is shocking to me that we would even be having this conversation going in in the first place. i'm calling as, not a homeowner of the mission, but as a tenant, wanting to see more traffic. i would also like to give you a reminder -- >> thanks. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. i disagree with the guys that were just talking. we don't need more high-end businesses. we need more business. we have been going to this gentrification for five, six, seven years now. it is a shame people aren't

giving it. it is an outrage. i reject this project and i hope you do too. >> okay, commissioners, that will conclude public comment. now the matter is before you. please, go ahead. >> thank you. i do have a couple of questions. first to the project sponsor. i understand that this is adr, but i think there are, you know, there is an outcry in this from the community. i wondering as to how your outreach process, when it comes

to the space that you are putting this forward that you outreach to different community members from the mission. i'm curious to know. >> are you still there? >> yes. apologies. go ahead, steve. >> we never did meet with -- we did meet with the d.r. requester and their group. we were told there was nothing they could do to make this proposal palatable. it ended the conversation and as you know, this is not a conditional use formula retail.

there was no planning commission -- planning commission approval requirement. >> i believe this was a project back in 2019. within that time, and until now, i'm trying to understand whether there has been discussion at a conversation or outreach in that duration of time. >> the building itself was completed -- it was an existing building. this is something -- [indiscernible] the proposal only came together in 2020. >> okay. i have a question. thank you very much.

i have a question to you. many of the comments were referring to the mission area plan and in our document, of course,, the zoning we have -- [indiscernible] >> we don't site the plan requirements when we do adr analysis. i will say, unless there is something that is overt within the area plan, like in terms of the objectives and policies that would apply to this, generally speaking the missionary plan includes broad policy and encourage businesses and encourage varying degrees. the hard part in this is the

planning code defines this as a limited restaurant use. a coffee shop. we don't go into the area plan as a who. >> typically, the mission area plan doesn't have the land of zoning definition that you will have? >> correct. there is no prohibition of limited restaurants or coffee shops in this case in the district or in any of the policies of the area plan. >> okay. i thinking -- i thinking, this is quite -- i -- we all know that in terms of the gentrification, mission has always been front and center of this and this has been before the pandemic and even

exacerbating in this time. this is difficult because this is adr. the d.r. does not necessarily make decisions on the conditional use, but on the design element, -- [indiscernible] for me, given that around this area there are many cafés, at the same time, there is a lack of equity when we are looking into the current zoning that we have. and i think this is a reason that many of the comity -- commentary is regarding this plan. i hope it is something we can fix as we are going through and updating the plan.

in my heart, i feel like i would take the d.r. because i think we need to put an equity lens in when it comes to the community design or the community character at this point. admission has already been exacerbated with gentrification. i would like to hear other commissioner comments as well. >> i first have a question for staff. there is a couple of comments from the records about a saturation study. is that a requirement we should have followed? can you elaborate a little on that request? >> we have a saturation study for the mission street zoning district where there is a hard cap on the number of eating and drinking establishments. in this district, there was no saturation study that was required.

>> thank you. i want to show the commission -- i sympathetic to the concerns that are being expressed by the neighborhood groups, but i have to say, i think this is the wrong form. this is not a conditional use permit hearing. it is adr hearing. i share some of her concerns and struggles with dealing with this particular request and the context of the d.r. hearing. i believe our job is to approve uses, not users. it is a principally permitted use, which is limited restaurant. it feels to me, and listening to the commenters, the language they used is an objection to a high-end user, and that is -- we are not approving a particular user. we approve uses and so i not

comfortable coming to the conclusion that the concerns that are expressed by the neighborhood are the kind of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which would give us the grounds to take d.r. on this. i do believe that the concerns that they have expressed would be very appropriately addressed by legislation and should be considered by the board of supervisors, but that is not what is in front of us right now. it is a particular d.r. request. so at the moment, i not hearing the grounds for taking d.r. >> i will echo your comments, commissioner diamond. the conditional use does take a little more to get an approval. this d.r. is not warranting a denial based on the fact that this is a vacant storefront with a business owner -- a willing

business owner. >> thank you. i want to echo the comments i heard and underscore wishing that we could take some action to help, especially given the saturation study was performed. can you help me understand the location of this district? where is it related to the n.c.t.? it is the tail end of the n.c.t. the zoning changed. had this been a few blocks down, then this would be subject to the saturation and the considerations. is that correct? >> the n.c.t. district does not extend as far north on the below mission street. you are correct.

>> do you know why this is? and if there was a reason why this didn't extend further down mission? we have rezoned the bulk of these areas. most of the parcels were formerly am one and m. two. that is typically what they got converted to. either that or p.d.r. more than likely, it did not extend as far north as it would have based on what -- on how they were doing the zoning plan, from my understanding. >> and with the saturation city, is that cab already exceeded? i know it is not applicable to

this parcel of land, but is it exceeded? >> based on my last review about this, and this was right before covid hit, we were around 143 out of a cap of 167. a lot of the information needs to be updated. i will update that info based on an application coming on file that hits on that metric. there are conditional uses that will be coming before the commission in a couple of months. so someone on my team will address this exact question. >> okay. >> to the many folks who called in and who are participating and continuing to work to try to reverse the gentrification in the mission, it seems like extending some of the saturation protection to areas of the

mission that aren't currently protected would be worthwhile pursuing under the legislation. this would still, it seems like it would not be exceeded. so if saturation is the concern, maybe those numbers need to be adjusted in terms of what the overall caps are, especially as we are looking at the recovery. just trying to think about what is the mix of the uses that we want to see in the area. i do also want to underscore my second thing commissioner diamond's comment which is part of what we do here at the commission is to look at the use and not diffuser. we can't say, well, this person isn't an immigrant of color, therefore, their business is not allowed to open. he is an immigrant from a european country, and to understand that is not what we are trying to prevent.

i do want to recognize it is a small business that is taking up the ground for retail. and it is ground-floor retail that works hard to have projects included. this is a newer project that has been built. it is an empty storefront that we have put in place to have access to. those are my comments. >> i have been following this and i would like to suggest that we reconsider raising the bar of how we start to look at the buildings when they first come for approval. this is a new building. i'll then the surrounding buildings. it was recently completed in a traditional neighborhood and in the mission area plan area. i would like to suggest that

considering ground-floor retail in these areas as part of a residential building, is, in itself, a dangerous use to approve. i have said this before. we have seen similar signs where new buildings with ground-floor retail started displacing and compete for higher rents, but then slowly pushed out to other traditional retail older buildings. we are seeing it in other areas if you observe closely enough. that threat exists in all corridors. it is a charge that is interesting, but we maybe might have to put that kind of a microscope or lens on approval of these types of isolated new buildings in these neighborhoods. i don't think that simply trying to change saturation studies is

exactly what it takes because stores come and go. we have to consider that in the future. as far as this goes, i feel very torn, but i do know that we are considering use over -- this is a permitted use. i search -- i uncertain what to do and i will decide in the next few minutes as i hear people comment. [indiscernible] >> i wanted to offer some thoughts and comments. if there is anything in here today it is sad to hear how much anxiety there is around displacement for small businesses, especially businesses operated by

immigrants, and especially difficult for businesses where the owner may not speak english as their first language and they don't have the ability to apply for loans and things like that. i'm very empathetic to the d.r. requester's argument. i do think the commission is constrained because this type of retail is principally permitted here. a few comments i also wanted to put out there, i know the city has started some loan programmes to help small businesses during the pandemic. i wanted to see if the planning staff could follow up with the merchants. it is designated as a legacy business. they might have access to additional funding and other resources. i hoping we can facilitate some

of this conversation. the main concern for me as a project is located in the mission area plan. there is an extensive community planning effort that allows them to plan. there is nothing directly in this project that really reflects awareness or acknowledgement or response to the neighborhood contract. >> it is important to elevate that the planning effort happens. we don't want to talk about this without recognizing the importance of a planning process. i don't have a solution for this, but i want to see if the project sponsor would be open to having further conversations or working with the stakeholders to acknowledge the context of the

neighborhood plan. [indiscernible] we already mentioned that you are hiring mission residence and exploring those plans for local higher. you are thinking about more actions. i wanted to ask the project sponsor if you would be open to having the conversation to explain those pathways. [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] >> i having a hard time hearing. >> i cannot hear either. >> i can't hear either. >> the connection is really bad, i'm afraid. [indiscernible] [indiscernible]

>> communicating with the neighborhood around for a potential plan. >> they are all displaced because it had to close. we have existing employees who will be rehiring for jobs, but certainly as jobs open up. outreach to the community makes sense. thank you. >> thank you. it is something for the other commissioners to think about. >> i don't think that we are trending towards a motion because the open ended discussion is very interesting, but it did not provide any direction of where we can go to take this. is this intended to be a request for continuance? is it intended to be the addition of conditions? which i personally believe are helpful, the don't change the

conditions of what the community is bringing forward to us. how do i understand or take this forward? >> i putting on the table conditions of approval, requiring the public his -- project sponsor to have a conversation with members to come up with a plan and explore these options such as spanish language menu, and other ways to recognize where the business is located in the latino cultural district. i don't know if other folks wanted to add to that? >> i in support of that. i wondering whether he can guide us. this is the d.r. and whether these conditions will be appropriate for adr. >> in this case, d.r. i think is

a challenged way to end conditions like these types of operational conditions, but it is not unheard of. in a normal conditional use where it is clear and the commission has land-use authority over, you know, certain uses that are not principally permitted, you certainly have discussions and conditions on the operation of the business. things like requiring spanish language menus and other features would definitely be clear. here where the authority is vested by our rules, sighting for exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, they can make it a little more murky from my end. i just think you probably can take d.r. and these conditions, and it was probably it would probably be something along the lines that you would want to

encourage local higher -- local hires and other features like that. in other businesses, you know, the commissioner's discretion limit hours and things like that. those are my initial thoughts. >> thank you. if i can jump in here and interject, he is absolutely correct. i do know discretionary review placed on principally permitted projects. in order to take discretionary review, it is very helpful for staff and for my team to hear from the commission what the exceptional, extraordinary circumstance is. and for example,, being in the cultural district might be a good example of such to impose conditions on the business to do community outreach.

>> no outreach has been undertaken. it is concerning to me because the indian cultural district has been in front of us for a number of times saying that they have been left out. that would be a beginning point for a broader outreach and broader participation, including more tailored conditions that speak to that aspect. >> if that is the case, it looks like other commissioners are going to speak. [indiscernible] this is within the mission area

plan and this is within the indian-american cultural district in which the project sponsors will have to do -- or will have to explore community outreach in this cultural district and area plan. that includes, you know, changes or adapting of menus two different languages, prioritizing local higher and other priorities that is mentioned by community groups. that would be my proposal for the motion. that are -- those are the end of my comments. thank you. >> for me, the question is

understanding the community groups that have spoken out against this project. i understand their concerns. the question here in my mind is that it looks like most of the district and these issues come or word. especially the conditional use issue. it is in the n.c.t. district. there is this is a particular area where there was always a service, a manufacturing area, and that is why you still see the mixture with lots right next to each other in the very next block. i not sure that i see

extraordinary circumstances that triggers the d.r. conditions or disapproval. >> commissioner tanner? >> thank you. if that was a motion, i would like to second it and thank her and commissioner chan for her leadership and helping us get here. i do support the location in the district and in the area plan to be exceptional and unextraordinary. i don't know if it is appropriate, but also the pandemic is exceptional. it has not happened for 100 years. it puts into focus a particular stress on our business. this commission has seen fit to see as an issue that we want to have our department work on that we have worked on, and that we also align ourselves through our

statement on racial equity and social equity to reverse some of those trends. i would support that. >> i think everything has been said, thank you. >> commissioner diamond? >> i could see supporting taking d.r. with the type of conditions that are being proposed, but i think they need to be a little more specific so we are giving guidance to the project sponsor as to what is being asked of them and giving guidance to the community groups as to what the scope of these conditions are. the translation of the menu into other languages seems very clear and enforceable. favouring local higher, it seems, i did hear the concern expressed by the project sponsor, which i agree with,

which is to rehire the people they laid off as a first priority, but certainly with respect to new hires prioritizing local hires would make sense to me. if we wanted to include language about prioritizing local hires, i would say it is with respect to new hires, or some language, which i would like their input on so it is clear what the expectations are around that. and then with respect to -- are those the only two areas were talking about. how is the cultural district displayed within the café? are there information boards? the artwork that is chosen, those particular issues are worthy of a conversation if the other commissioners are willing.

but if i could get some guidance from the project sponsor about the commitment to explore local higher, i would like that to be a little more specific. >> i happy to address some of what i have heard, but maybe i will defer to discuss the project sponsor's willingness. >> the notion of a local outreach makes sense with the understanding that the existing employees that were laid off when the creamery closed would be considered first. >> yeah,, i think the city does have a hiring programme and local hiring for larger scale development. for the smaller scale development, we don't have anything that we can probably apply in this instance.

i would say that the commission can generally encourage the sponsor to take advantage of it. most definitely, from what i have heard from the commissioners, we can certainly add a condition about doing additional outreach for the american -- sorry to the american, indian cultural center. this site is located within it. it is located outside of the latino cultural district, but it is part of the larger mission area plan. those are the only two items that i have heard from the commissioners. were there other things that you want to entertain as part of taking d.r.? >> let's work on the exact language of the condition for the local higher. what would you propose? >> we would want to say things along the lines that commission encourages the project sponsor

to undertake local hires from residents of the mission neighborhood and/or from the larger american indian cultural district. that might hit upon a little bit of what you are talking about. >> could we say with respect to new hires? >> correct. >> you might want to get more specific. they facilitate these programmes to discuss. >> that would be great to add the city engaged through oewd to be part of the language, and then i guess the question about the cultural part of this is really a question from the other commissioners. do we think we should add a third condition or more that address the actual location and whether or not there some reflection in the café of the cultural districts within this?

or should they have conversations about that with these groups? >> they should have conversations because otherwise it becomes something that comes from the group itself. >> yeah. i think encouraging conversations with the groups about that would be, in my mind, a nice thing to include as a condition. >> were there other conditions that you had wanted to see included here? >> thank you. i just want to -- you asked about the specific languages and he emphasized on the encouraging of the local hires and new hires for the project sponsor. i want to make sure that what i saying it's more an encouragement, and especially when it comes to a labor issue. i just want to emphasize that. thank you.

>> if there is nothing further commissioners, there appears to be a motion. i will try to capture it. i may have missed that last part that you were including. forgive me if i get it wrong. my understanding is there is a motion that has been seconded to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed, adding conditions related to the cultural district and area plan to conduct additional community outreach, at least to directing the project sponsor to conduct additional community outreach related to multilingual menus and encouraging employment opportunities for local higher and acknowledge that previous employees will have first right of refusal and encouraging cultural art and other

components into the retail space. i hope that covered those three conditions appropriately. on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioner koppel had to leave early. commissioner moore, you will be cheering for the remainder of this hearing. we are on the last item of your agenda today. this is a discretionary review. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i, thank you, jonas.

good afternoon. i david winslow, staff architect. the project before you is a request for discretionary review of the building permit application number 2020. to construct a new rear deck on an existing one-story garage on the rear of the lot that faces the alley. the d.r. requester, the adjacent property and the west of the proposed project is considered that the proposed deck will cause privacy and noise impacts to the immediate and adjacent neighbors. there are no other -- there are other decks to the use of the building currently and proposed. the proposed alternative would

be to deny the roof deck over the garage. to date, and i want to amend my report, there have been two letters opposing the project. the department's review of this confirms support by locating a deck on the existing roof which is allowed by code. and in such cases, where the design might be considered for impacts to privacy and adjacent neighbors and the department review found that modifications are needed to bring it into conformity. the deck may extend to the front of the garage that faces the alley to compensate for some of the loss of deck space and to provide inground landscape of sufficient height and density to

two group -- to provide the screen between the neighboring property to the west and the deck above the garage. therefore, staff recommends taking d.r. and approving those modifications. that is my report and i here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. we should hear from the d.r. requester. you have three minutes. >> thank you, members of the commission. are my slides available to view? >> they don't appear to be up yet and they are now. >> thank you. thank you for your time. i the owner of 1532 church street. i live here with my 12-year-old

daughter. my backyard touches the backyard of 308 duncan street. the proposed roof deck on top of the deck impacts me and the surrounding neighbors. you can see here in the picture the location of the proposed deck how open and exposed to the neighborhood it is. we have rows of backyards and many of them with garages in the rear and none of them have a deck on top. we have others in the neighborhood, just none in the slow and exposed area. have strong privacy concerns, as well as the added neighborhood noise. the location of the deck is an island in the middle of our house. next line, please. this is another view of the proposed deck taken from the neighbor's house on the other side of the property. you are looking down onto the property line. the basketball court on the left is the neighbor's house and the garage with the deck with the markings is on the right. it is as if the deck is in our own backyard.

last slide, please. i would like to state for the record that i have been a supportive neighbor from the beginning. anytime they need to use my backyard to access the side of the building for scaffolding or anything else, i say yes. can see in the picture that the arrow pointing -- the fourth floor addition with the deck is higher than all the surrounding buildings and i didn't complain about it because my assumption was the noise from the deck would go over all of our houses, while the noise from the deck would carry directly into our houses. a deck that is approximately 10 feet off the ground is absolutely not the same as private space behind a fence. the only downside to not allowing it is a possible financial concern to the developer. the developer who owns the building does not live on-site. this is not for his personal use. based on past history, it falls on us to monitor late-night

activity. he has said he will write into the lease that deck usage restrictions but he is not on-site to monitor it. when he sells the building, we are dealing with a new owner. he has pushed the building to the maximum. and in adding the fourth floor, some of us have at -- lost hours of sunlight to our backyard. please give us a voice. just because a project meets the minimum, does not mean it is in the best interest of the neighborhood. thank you for your time. >> thank you. project sponsor, you will also have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i the project architect representing the owner. the proposed roof terraces over a garage on a through lot parcel. the existing three unit residential building friends both duncan and with a frontage

on conference street where we have the existing garage building. as you can see from the plan on slide one, the existing building and garage occupy most of the lot. the owner is, with this permit, trying to provide an equal amount about her open space for each unit with his renovation project. the top floor unit has a roof terrace accessible only from the top floor, which is shown in green on the slide. the lower level unit has a small outdoor patio area at the front of the building off the living space and there is a second small patio area at the rear directly off the lower level bedroom. this is shown in blue. the existing footprint did not allow the second floor middle unit to have an outdoor open space. this proposes a small outdoor terrace over the existing garage shown in yellow. [please stand by]

>> the purpose of the deck is to provide equity for each of the rental units and in terms of --

>> thank you for the presentation and you will have a two minute rebuttal. members of the public this is the opportunity to speak to this matter by entering the queue and press star then 3 and it's your indication to begin speaking. you will have one minute. >> hello, thank you for hearing us and my name is enrique and my property is against the west side of the structure that we're speaking up. i did meet with the developer to talk to him and i was gracious and we walked the site. even with the changes proposed, the structure looks directly into my backyard. i would lose complete privacy in my backyard from the structure on top of the platform.

again, he and i went to the top of the structure of the roof and you can look into my backyard. secondly the proposed plexiglass that proposed to be put on top of the structure, that completely blocks the direct eyesight from my kitchen door. my kitchen door which is all glass facing my backyard would completely be obstructed by the line of sight of what she's adding on top. so not only do i lose privacy looking down on my yard but the privacy and eyesight looking across my yard. >> thank you, that's your time. >> hi, this is george a. i live in the 400 block of done duncan and for 30 years i've walked down the alley to get the jay church but i didn't done it in the last year.

i was surprised about the building because it looked different to me, the garage. i don't know, i haven't been down there. i will say it's a key lot, 308 duncan is a key lot and it butts up against this property zone church that are to the east. it's a very congested in there and i think that the d.r. requester has made a sound argument that this is extraordinary exceptional for this so-called terrace on this garage, this building. so, i hope that you will respect her wishes and i think that the things should be denied because it's all very, very close down there and very compact and her privacy will be destroyed as well as that of the other neighbors whose lots butt up against it. thank you, take care. good-bye. be well and be safe.

>> members of the public, looks like there's one more. >> are you prepared to make a public comment? ok, members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. i'd like to comment on how the owner would like every unit in this building to have private outdoor space which is nice but his motive is financial. he can charge more representative with a roof deck. i am not anti roof deck. i already showed the picture of the fourth floor deck which i supported in a more appropriate

location. he increased the footprint of his building reducing outdoor space. he wants to add a deck on the garage in grew of the neighborhood. if he would like more outdoor space do what the other neighbors have done and reduce the footprint of the gorge. either entirely or half. it can be a one-car garage. the neighbor on the other side has done that which you saw on my slide and it works well. street parking is easy in our neighborhood and we're very accessible to public transportation. i'd like toned saying just because of project meets code requirements does not mean it's in the best interest of the neighborhood. please, do set the precedent allowing a roof deck on the detached garage. it would be the first of it's kind in this neighborhood. please take our needs into consideration over a developer whose interests are not a lined with ours. thank you for your consideration and time.

>> you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you, very much. just wanted to emphasize again that this is not a common roof deck for use of all units. it's the use of a single dwelling unit. probably rare occupancy on a sunny day space for a table and it is the outdoor open space. the d.r. requester in the neighbors all have individual yards and much larger open spaces so, we do believe that it's only fair to allow the family that lives in this middle unit to have a small outdoor open space for their personal use. so that is it. >> thank you. commissioners, that will conclude public comment by the public hearing portion of this matter. and so it is now before you. >> if i may, i'd like to say

that i consider the project, based on the d.r. requester very concise. the description extraordinary and exceptional and actually impactful setting a bad precedent for an enlargement of the existing building and squeezing out what could have been shared open space for all. i want to leave it with that just for openers. >> commissioner fung. >> mr. winslow, the d.r. requester mentioned the building footprint was increased in the main project on the front building to what expect was it

internet creased? >> a vertical expansion, not a horizontal expansion and the reason i say that is i could figure out how to access google aerial view i could show you the existing footprint prior to construction. which shows a constrained rear yard. a typical building with rear stairs and -- there's open space that would be considered the rear yard f grade in the before. so the vertical addition is basically adding another-storey to the gable of this project and then adding a deck on the existing footprint of that building. >> so the -- it looks like the stairs are new construction. >> the stair is new construction. there's replacing an existing

wood switch back stair. >> in the same location? >> well, in the rear yard not in the same location. generally yes, in the same location. very limited. >> let me double check and scroll down. bear with me while i access the drawings. i take that back.

yeah that pop out appears to be part of the building illustrated in the aerial view prior to construction of this project. >> ok. >> i wouldn't call it a pop-out it's a three-storey portion of the building which doesn't have the koebel roof. >> there might have been a slight pop out and for the record we can have the project sponsors clarified. >> am i on? >> yes. >> so there was a long the west side of the building there was a very small infill area of a portion that did not come all the way to the property line of seven feet wide by 12.

there was a small expansion but it was not a radical part that took away a big section of continuous yard and that pop out did exist so that was just a renovation of that pop out area and the stair was a replacement, an enkind replacement of an existing stair. i would say the footprint upgrade expanded and i don't have the exact number. maybe 80 feet but it was tucked in the corner on the eastside not even at the dra and the property that is closer to the corner so there was a -- >> thank you. >> commissioners, i also field this is an extraordinary and the

i'm not supportive of the deck on top of the garage. >> thank you. mr. winslow, in terms of the modification that is suggested which is all sittings five foot on both sides that are facing the adjacent properties and then the can you help me understand what we're saying when we say a round?

it was at ground along the side property line abutting this (inaudible). not on the -- it's something that would actually be in substance and grow rather than be in a planter box and maintenance and possible death. >> right, right. i do support that. i wonder will screening. i know the other side does not request d.r. but is there any screen tag is required towards the adjacent property on the other side? which is where the picture of the basketball hoop was? >> where i am, kind of, is i do support the modifications that you are suggesting and i wonder

if we might give a more specific height to what screening is required in terms of the inground plantings and if that is intended to be at the time of sullation versus growing overtime and the the commission a proves those mode indications, would have assurance that you know, a tree or a shrub of what have you, does it need to be 20 feet or 14 tall to provide screening is there and on the other side, i understand we have guidance around railings and things like that. i don't know if that could encloud any type of screening that is on the top of the deck. it doesn't need to be natural, it could be something else. i'm not sure if we have recommendations regarding what that might be. >> certainly. so fixed screening, anything above on a deck it's allowed to occupy an existing non-compliance structure and the

height that is 4 # inches typically. 42 inches, when we are asked to go above that that would require variants and you don't want to push the project sponsor in the variance. the aspect of asking for screening with landscape asking brought with two problems, one is, we don't regulate it typically, we don't go out and enforce 679 it a mean able to both parties, could solve part of problem if not most of the problem with respect to the d.r. questioner. requester.

i want to mention the privacy issue as i did assess it while we were in this hearing, typically we don't have guidelines that assess privacy impacted to rear yards. if you look down on some neighbor rear yards and you have hills and tall buildings, we don't consider visual access to someone's rear yard necessarily privacy impact unless there's some unique circumstances. >> for my part, commissioners, i find that it allows us and there are modifications that are trying to set up back from the adjacent properties making it a little bit harder to peek over the edge straight down into the

yard. i also in providing useable open space for units in light of the importance of that space. and i am supportive of taking d.r. and approving it with modification that's have been suggested but i'd like to hear from other commissioners if there's further modification that's would be ameen able or desired. >> tied like to take this conversation further and asked mr. winslow, this project was not before the commission from the current (inaudible) situation, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. you showed a photo of the upper roof deck which typically we asked to stay away from the building edges, it does not do that. right there is the first kind of call out for an unusual building which is the request outline having support so i'm not debating that. this project now is a garage

with a permit from what i understand and it's i think some form of permiting and i personally have the experience that a deck in that location is not only exceptional and extraordinary but also highly intrusive for those who look into their rear yards seeing small garage as the only form bordering the comfort suite alley and now all of a sudden seeing one roof deck while during the day it may be a green spot looking still back into the back of your unit where you mostly have bedrooms and what happens you are dinning room or whatever and at night it's like pollution there's activity and i personally believe that given our aggressively this building has been enlarged it did not pay

any attention to the required open space or communal use of open space as it enlarged. as an afterthought with an over -- it's for me something i have huge questions about and i think it sets a bad precedent because i think ultimately why it's hard to define in code, it's an issue of commonsense. it would be my explanation to not wanting to support this project. i'm calling on commissioner diamond, please. >> so i have struggled with this particular d.r. because on one happened, i am generally in favor of roof decks and definitely in favor of looking for more ways to expand open space as we increase the densification across the city, particularly on the west side. i feel like in this particular

instance, putting a roof deck above a garage is a completely different -- it changes the experience for all of the surrounding properties. it's different than having a roof deck three floors up and it's completely different than having neighbors besides you hyped a fence on the ground floor. this is putting people 15 feet, 10 to 15 feet up in the air with a boundary with a sense of some kind all around it and it's visible and it will definitely have a negative impact on and more spots could have been given when they undertook the design in the first place and while it would have been nice to eye different design we shouldn't come up with a loose which is

what this is i would not be in favor. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> do you have additional comments? >> no. i support commissioner fung's moore and diamond's comments not having the roof deck on top of the garage. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to take d.c. approve the project without the roof deck. >> does this have to be a motion of intent or is this a motion that is already in our packet? >> well, this is a discretionary review commissioner moore so essentially you are taking

discretionary review and approving the project with the modification that the roof deck not be included and be eliminated from the building permit application. on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> i'm sorry, what is the project we're approving because i thought the project was the roof. >> thank you, very much. the project is the building permit application is entirely for the flattening of the roof and installation of the roof deck on the roof of the garage. it has nothing to do with the previously permitted. >> thank you for that clarification. >> thank you, i appreciate that. so on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> no. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye.

>> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner danner voting against. commissioners, that will concludes today's agenda. >> thank you, the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. >> take care. >> bye, everyone.

>> van ness avenue runs from market street to bay street in san francisco. south vanness runs from south of market to cesar chavez street. originally residential after the 1906 earthquake it was used as a fire break. many car dealerships and businesses exist on vanness today with expansion of bus lanes. originally marlet street was named after james vanness, seventh mayor of san francisco from 1855 to 1856. vanness heavy are streets in santa cruz, los angeles and fresno in his honor. in 1915 streetcars started the opening of the expo. in 1950s it was removed and

replaced by a tree-lined median. it was part of the central freeway from bayshore to hayes valley. it is part of uses 101. it was damaged during the 1989 earthquake. in 1992 the elevator part of the roadway was removed. it was developed into a surface boulevard. today the vanness bus rapid transit project is to have designated bus lanes service from mission. it will display the history of the city. van ness avenue.

>> good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, march 25th meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar and committee member matt haney will be joining us. and we're